Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House, at its rising today, do adjourn till Tuesday 9 January.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Sir Peter Emery: On this last day before the Christmas recess, may I wish you, Madam Speaker, a very happy Christmas? Some of us believe that you do an excellent job in the Chair.
The Leader of the House may recall that, during the Prime Minister's speech on the Loyal Address, I raised the issue of the amount of money and effort that Labour and Liberal Democrat local authorities were expending to put forward arguments, when votes are taken at schools, against their opting for grant-maintained status. The Prime Minister said that the matter would be looked at. What steps are being taken? In the county of Devon, there is constant proof that the local education authority and county council employees are making a considerable effort to urge and support those who wish to resist grant-maintained status. Examples in Devon of the great success that grant-maintained status has brought about include Colyton grammar school. It is not right that ratepayers' money should be used for the political purpose of resisting grant-maintained status.
Will the Leader of the House discuss with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment whether the Government have considered the possibility that, where sums have been expended for that purpose, they should be surcharged against the councillors for unnecessary expenditure that does not form part of a local authority's normal expenditure? The matter is of considerable importance. I need not spend more time on it, and I should be pleased if, in the period before the House reassembles, it could be looked at much more fully.

Mr. David Winnick: In the spirit of Christmas, may I too wish you, Madam Speaker, a happy Christmas and new year? If next year I sometimes feel that I am not catching your eye, I shall bear in mind the fact that I wished you a happy Christmas at the appropriate time.
I wish only briefly to mention what occurred last night: once again, the Government were defeated and humiliated. It is important, however, and it would be useful, to have a proper statement arising from that defeat. So far, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has merely made an inadequate statement on a point of

order. The Government must now work on the assumption that the political arithmetic is going against them. They would be wrong to work on any other assumption, as their majority is likely to go down next year, and they will be faced time and again with the same difficulties as last night.
How much better it would be if the Government resolved that matter by going to the country and letting it decide, rather than trying to linger on until the last possible moment, despite all the setbacks and humiliations. It is time for a general election, and I hope that it will come sooner rather than later.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: How many times were the Labour Government of the day, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, defeated in Parliament between October 1974 and 1979? Did they not soldier on as long as they could?

Mr. Winnick: Conservative Members have often told us that that was unfortunate and undignified, and that the Labour Government should have gone to the country. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has said the same. Regardless of what happened in the 1970s, surely it is time for Conservative Members to practise what they preach, given that we have been lectured so often by them. Let the country decide sooner rather than later.
I must raise two other matters before we go into the recess. Not long ago, I applied under Standing Order No. 20 for an emergency debate on cold weather payments, especially for those pensioners on income support. It was not successful.
It is extremely unfortunate that, despite the extremely harsh weather that we have been experiencing, so few pensioners who would have been eligible to receive what is only a modest sum—£8.50 a week—have received it. I checked the latest information with the Library. Out of 55 weather stations—I do not know how the country is divided up and why there are 55, but so be it—the trigger mechanism worked in only seven. What conditions are necessary for it to work?
The Leader of the House will understand all this, because he was involved with the appropriate Department for some time. The weather has to be freezing for seven days and seven nights continuously. If it is intensely cold or freezing for three, four or even six days, as it has been in many parts of the country, but there is then a change in the weather, the payments are not made. It is a daft scheme, which deprives so many elderly people on the lowest incomes of extra money to keep themselves warm.
In the main, it is rare for pensioners to get into fuel debt—that applies as much to other Members' constituents as to mine—simply because they are frightened of receiving a bill that they cannot afford to pay. They do not keep the heating on as much as they should, or as we would do because we have the income to do so. They might heat only one room, or go to the library or some other public place during the day to save fuel. It is a terrible situation, and that is why I applied for an emergency debate and why I have kept on about the subject.
As the Leader of the House is aware, I am sure, percentage-wise more elderly people die here in the winter months than in many other European countries. One can only come to the conclusion that, because elderly people on low incomes suffer so much misery and


hardship, they put their health at risk—they risk hypothermia and related conditions. The emergency payment should be made to all those who would otherwise be eligible. As I said, out of the 55 weather stations scattered around the country, the mechanism has worked in only seven.
Finally, the Leader of the House may be aware that, following the terrible tragedy of the headmaster who was knifed to death, I asked at the first opportunity in the House—on the following Monday—whether it would be possible for the Government urgently to consider legislation to toughen up on knives. They have responded in some ways. I am not merely criticising; I am pleased with that response.
A private Member's Bill—the Offensive Weapons Bill—has been tabled, and there is no reason why I, along with my hon. Friends, should not support it. Obviously, we will have to wait until Second Reading and the Committee stage, and I hope that the Bill receives a Second Reading. The Bill and the response of the House are the attitude that the general public want.
In a dignified and courageous statement last weekend, Mrs. Lawrence, the widow of the head who was murdered, gave an interview to the Press Association. She spoke of her family's deep sorrow, for her children and herself. She also said that she would like it to be more difficult for knives to be purchased.
At business questions last Thursday, I asked whether, rather than the Home Secretary taking a confrontational attitude to the Opposition over this—although the Leader of the House denied that that was the case—the Home Secretary could meet my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) before the Second Reading of the Offensive Weapons Bill to find out whether any agreement could be reached on the purchase of knives.
I understand all the counter-arguments—what would happen about bread knives, and would one stop people buying knives for legitimate sporting purposes?—but we should be aware that there is a knife culture among youths in certain areas. It is almost as if a knife is a part of their dress when they go out. Fortunately for the safety of the general public, the knives are not usually used, but their use for criminal purposes is increasing.
At about the time that Philip Lawrence was knifed to death, a security officer at an Asda store in Newcastle was also knifed to death when he courageously went to the aid of two female employees. We should not forget him, either. Those two men exhibited the highest courage. They could have saved their own lives by acting differently; instead, they lost their lives.
The Government must understand that, yes, we want to tighten up on sentencing, for which there is a strong case—hence my support for the private Member's Bill—but that there is scope to make it more difficult for knives to be purchased, despite all the difficulties. Fortunately, unlike the United States, we have pretty tough restrictions on guns. In some respects, I would like them to be tougher. Fortunately, one cannot simply purchase a gun.
I hope that the Home Secretary, with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, will be able to find out whether there is scope for tightening up the sale of knives, and will take legal advice and so forth, so that one will

not be able to buy the most ghastly knives in shops in central London or by mail order. The weapons might not be intended for criminal purposes, but what guarantee do we have of that? I hope that the Leader of the House will pass on my views to the appropriate Ministers.

Mr. Barry Field: May I join colleagues on both sides of the House in wishing you a happy Christmas, Madam Speaker. I hope that you will take my word for it that no analogy is intended in the fact that I intend to begin by mentioning the royal yacht. I often likened my wife, when I married her, to a sleek racing craft. After 26 years of marriage, I now say that the cargo has shifted a bit.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: It has in my hon. Friend's case, too.

Mr. Field: Yes, it has in my case, too, as my hon. Friend so rightly points out.
I have a slight sense of déjà vu, since we began the year with a campaign for the royal yacht—or I certainly did—and I seem to be ending the year with one. Having said our prayers for the royal family, what more appropriate way is there to start?
The BBC is running a programme on that magnificent vessel tonight. As she is a riveted ship, I do not understand why we cannot keep her in commission for many years to come. She is quite capable of being repaired and kept in good order and, although in her present state she requires a large crew, the manning levels could be reduced with modern machinery.
I hope that I may yet win that important battle because, as has been said many times, the yacht is very much part of the fabric of our nation. There could be no finer sight than the Heads of State embarking on that magnificent vessel to celebrate the D-day landings. One Head of State, the President of the United States, chose not to travel on the royal yacht, and went aboard a grey-funnel ship of his own nation—it did not look the part. If Heads of State of the major countries throughout Europe voted with their feet and stayed aboard the royal yacht, that would be a good way of influencing the Government.
I should like to keep with the slightly salty flavour, and mention last night's fishing debate. I was rather surprised to receive a letter from the Liberal Democrat-controlled council of the Isle of Wight asking me to vote against the measure. In the right-hand corner of the council's notepaper, there is a silhouette of the Isle of Wight, over which it says that it is a "region of Europe".
The Liberal Democrat Members seem to have gone off to Christmas rather early. I wonder if some of the Opposition Members who are present could search behind the Benches to see if there are any Liberal Democrat Members in the Chamber—it seems rather bereft of their presence. Perhaps Liberal Democrat Members have decided that the United Kingdom has become a region of Europe; they are so Brussels-barmy that they have probably gone there for the day.
It is extraordinary for the Liberal Democrat-controlled council on the Isle of Wight to tell everyone that the Isle of Wight is a region of Europe. It even went to the extent of minting its own coins, on the back of which it said that


the Isle of Wight ecu would be introduced in 1996. That same council says that we should vote against the fisheries policy of the EC.
I went to the trouble of telephoning the chairman and secretary of the Isle of Wight fishermen's association, who also approached me about last night's debate. I asked them what had changed since I last voted on the issue in the House. Fisheries policy is, of course, a contentious matter, particularly for Members of Parliament who represent fishermen who fish in the western approaches. The chairman and secretary could not tell me what had changed in terms of the Isle of Wight, but they suggested that I contact a fisherman named Ray Hayles.
I telephoned Ray Hayles, and asked him what had happened. He said, "It is the general conservation view—we are concerned that there are more Frenchmen and Spaniards, and fewer fish." I told him that I understood that, but that the Government had reduced the number of fishermen who can come from the rest of the EC into British waters. I said that I wanted to know what had changed in relation to the Isle of Wight.
I took the trouble to ask staff in the House of Commons Library what had changed, and they more or less confirmed that nothing had changed. There is an incredible perception that hon. Members were voting to determine a policy, but the vote was taken on the motion to "take note", and had little influence. The vote was not, as many fishermen thought, on a motion to take Britain out of the EC fisheries policy. The vote did not make one ha'p'orth of difference to the fishermen of the Isle of Wight. As all hon. Members have long since realised, reality and fiction in the House are certainly not bedfellows.
One of my favourite subjects, which I first raised when I entered the House in 1987, involves light dues. The Government have done remarkably well in abolishing the dock labour scheme. There has been a fantastic increase in the amount of trade to our ports, which were privatised under the trust port legislation. The one remaining problem is the considerable cost of light dues when bringing a ship to Great Britain.
Even more pernicious, all constituents pay tax to the Treasury, but my constituents in some parts of the Solent also have to pay a tax to Trinity house for travelling backwards and forwards to the Isle of Wight. The position is anomalous: in the eastern Solent, the buoyage is controlled by the Queen's habourmaster—the Royal Navy—and no light dues are charged, but in the western Solent, Trinity house controls the buoyage, and has to charge light dues on the ferries coming to and from the Isle of Wight. Just outside Cowes harbour are two buoys which do not contribute to safe navigation in and out of the harbour, but their presence means that the red-funnel service to Southampton from Cowes has to pay light dues for the buoys, as do all day-trip vessel operators, both on the island and travelling from the mainland.
There was a recent inquiry in the western Solent, because Associated British Ports wanted to take over that section of the Solent, the channel up from the Needles, which is unregulated—there is no authority for it, which is extraordinary. ABP proposed that it should become the navigation authority, and I thought that, with some qualifications, that would be an ideal way of easing Trinity house out of the Solent.
Associated British Ports has offered to take over the buoyage in the Solent from Trinity house, but the proposal has been rejected for a variety of reasons. I find it difficult

to understand why my constituents should be placed at a disadvantage compared with those of the rest of the United Kingdom by having to pay an additional form of taxation just because they live on an offshore island.
We have also encountered problems over the years with dredging for aggregate in the Solent. I am pleased that both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Crown estate have given me a guarantee that in future there will be no renewal or extension of licences for the dredging of aggregate in the Solent.
It is remarkable that one of the objections to ABP's proposal, which included maintenance dredging in the Needles channel, was that it should not be allowed to dredge. That objection came from the Isle of Wight council—the same council that refused to support me against New Forest district council dredging the, shingle bank to replenish Hurst spit. That is an extraordinary example of environmental double standards, which seem to infect not only Isle of Wight council policy but some of its councillors.
There have been difficulties in Solent waters in recent years due to sewage pollution. One oyster bed has been closed in the western Solent this year. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has kindly agreed that we should meet the fish experts at Weymouth, which we shall do in the new year. When we have done that, we shall go to see the Environment Minister to discuss the problem of sewer outfalls. Southern Water tried hard to get the Solent waters redesignated; I am pleased to say that Her Majesty's Government resisted that proposal.
All the requirements of the urban waste water directives will have to be met. That will involve building a new sewerage plant with a long sea outfall at Sandown. Local fishermen and the tourist board are rightly concerned that there should be a cast-iron guarantee that the effluent will not wash up on the beaches to create the problems that have occurred in other parts of the country. It is proposed that the sewerage plant and outfall system should serve the whole of the Isle of Wight—or at least a great proportion of it. I hope that the Lord President will take note of my remarks, as it is a tortuous problem; we have suffered for many years from the inadequate Victorian sewerage system around the coast of the United Kingdom.
As a result of water privatisation and EC directives, there has been a massive investment and clean-up. We won some blue flags for our beaches on the Isle of Wight. However, one problem is that the scheme for Ventnor has been delayed; Ventnor has a serious problem, because it has an inadequate system. It was to have a new system, but that has been scrapped because of the redesignation of the seas off the north side of the island, the Solent. I hope that ministerial pressure will be exerted on Southern Water to ensure that it gets on with the scheme, and to guarantee that it is effective.
I now turn to the subject of education on the Isle of Wight and our standard spending assessments. The capping limits for the Isle of Wight council have been raised, and in March a whole series of bids will come in for various functions of the new unitary council. However, a substantial body of opinion on the island is encouraged to believe that the Government have not properly funded education on the Isle of Wight. I take great exception to that, because the settlement we have just had is more than adequate, taken with the savings made by having a unitary authority that we expect from—indeed, were promised by—the Isle of Wight council.


The settlement should be more than adequate to ensure that we have a quality education service on the island. We understand that it is more expensive than most other education authorities, because it is a three-tier system. Given the small size of our population, education will always be more expensive per capita.
I support, and align myself with, the chairman of the education committee on the council. The council should spend all the money available on education in the island, which is mostly good. Obviously, education is our future, not just for the Isle of Wight, but for our nation, too.
On the island, we have had a serious problem with the British Medical Association. It has, on three occasions, run some serious scare stories about the island's health service. The most recent was last week—the suggestion in a television programme that St. Mary's hospital was to become a cottage hospital, and that the single-handed specialties were to be removed from the Isle of Wight.
The story suggested that, in future, we would have to travel to the mainland to have those surgical operations that have hitherto been available on the Isle of Wight. In fact, those operations have been available on the Isle of Wight only since the funding improvements and the general expansion of the health service by the Government.
On Sunday, with my wife, the chairman of the Isle of Wight council and the high sheriff, I toured St. Mary's hospital. We started at 9 am, and my wife and I finished our tour just after 6 pm. I was told by the chief executive that there was absolutely no truth in the programme on the BBC that emanated from the BMA. The chairman has written to the single-handed specialists in ophthalmology, oral surgery, and ear, nose and throat to say that the suggestion in the programme is not true, and that he is awaiting the results of an advertisement for a cardiac consultant on the island.
We have had problems, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know, with community care and its funding on the Isle of Wight. I was shocked to be told on my rounds on Sunday that there was a proposal for the closure of the Totland ward. That ward is operated by the Isle of Wight Community Healthcare NHS trust, and a little lady there told me how much it meant to her for respite care.
The Leader of the House is ideally qualified, because of his previous ministerial offices, to understand the great conundrums one faces in trying to deliver community care. For example, Margaret Condon, who was a patient in that ward and is a great supporter of mine, was worried that she would no longer receive assistance from that facility. The hospital is trying to contract out the service to private nursing homes, because of the numbers involved and the staff ratios. The next person I spoke to, whom I had never met before, was Alfred Chapman, who is 91 and blind. His wife is blind as well. He told me that he thought the time was coming when he and his wife might need a little assistance at home from social services.
Those two examples show the diversity in people's needs and requirements of the health service. That chap of 91, blind and living with his wife, has hitherto been completely independent at home, and has come in for respite care because he had a problem with his chest and

was feeling down. On the other hand, Margaret Condon, who is considerably younger, relies on that type of care all the time.
We will have a unitary authority, and we have some sense of realism about the delivery of community care on the island. We also expect the decision—which I have long campaigned for—on the amalgamation of the Isle of Wight Community Healthcare NHS trust with St. Mary's Hospital (Isle of Wight) trust. We are told that that will save nearly £500,000 per annum.
I hope that the council will not continue to insist on running an entirely separate organisation, but will join in one mutual organisation with shared services, so that we can ensure the greatest efficiency and the most money for patient care. In the meantime, I hope that the Leader of the House will support the staff and the rest of us to ensure that Totland ward does not close.
There is concern about the target formula from the Department of Health—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the House suffering a selfish abuse of the procedure? The understanding is that these Adjournment debates are limited to three hours and that each of us should show some kind of restraint. Parading constituency problem after constituency problem is not a proper use of a Wednesday morning.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member who is speaking is entirely in order, in relation to the subject before us.

Mr. Tony Banks: Tedious repetition.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There has been no repetition. If there had been, I would have intervened.

Mr. Banks: Well, it has been very tedious.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would have intervened had there been repetition. I imagine that the hon. Member who is speaking will notice how many other hon. Members wish to contribute.

Mr. Field: If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had had the courtesy to intervene, I would have given way to him. I hope that he would have accepted—because he is reasonable—that I have a cogent explanation for my speech this morning.
Since I came to the House in 1987, I have never made an entire speech about the Isle of Wight. I am the only Member who represents an entire county in its own right, and we have a number of problems. Not least, I am the only Member who represents more than 100,000 constituents, and this is the first occasion on which I have endeavoured, and am endeavouring, to make a comprehensive speech about the Isle of Wight. I am sorry if Opposition Members find it tedious: I am sure that my constituents do not. I can tell the hon. Member for Linlithgow that I do not intend to have a similar marathon in the future, having made this speech.
However, I have a number of other, separate points that I intend to raise this morning.

Mr. Banks: Tut-tut.

Mr. Field: The tut-tutting from Opposition Members would be more reasonable if they understood the considerable pressure and work load that having more than 100,000 constituents brings.


I shall continue. Sadly, this week, a policeman was stabbed on the Isle of Wight. I am pleased to say that his injuries will not cause him to be off work for long, but I am sure that we wish him a speedy recovery. I am pleased that the House is addressing the subject of the carrying of knives in public places. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has already—and rightly—raised that subject this morning.
There is considerable frustration on the Isle of Wight that we cannot get our local authority to take seriously the installation of closed circuit television cameras in public places. I am not suggesting that the island needs to be blanketed by them—fortunately, we have a considerably lower crime rate than the rest of the United Kingdom—but many people on the island believe, and I am sure it is a universal opinion, that CCTV can make a major contribution to reducing crime, particularly petty vandalism in public places.
I am pleased that the Chancellor made provision for that in the Budget. We do not seem to be making much progress on its installation on the island, although I believe that the council, in conjunction with the police, will submit a bid for CCTV shortly.
We have the highest level of seasonal unemployment in the United Kingdom, which is another reason why I feel fully justified in taking up the time of the House this morning. In the past few days, however, we have benefited from the single regeneration budget.
There is a feeling on the island that glad tidings are about to come to us from the Government in the form of the assistance that they will give us. The business link has been established, and it is beginning to extend its tentacles throughout the island to draw together all the agencies of Government. I am sure that it will grapple with the intractable problem of seasonal unemployment, from which the island has suffered for so many years.
I still wonder why the Department for Education and Employment, the Isle of Wight council or business link has not conducted a survey of the number of people who commute to work from the mainland to the Isle of Wight. My constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates of all Conservative constituencies, and it seems extraordinary that a contingent of people commute to the Isle of Wight to work. We should endeavour to address that mismatch.
This week, the island's citizens advice bureau received the largest grant of those given throughout the south of England—more than £300,000—to assist its work on the island. I am particularly pleased about that, because our CAB has had problems in obtaining funding locally in the past. I am sure that that funding will ensure that it gives an efficient service to all my constituents throughout the island, and not just those in Newport, as it did hitherto.
The Isle of Wight's roads are notorious. When one drives off the car ferry, there is, for some reason, a large sign, erected courtesy of the council, which says, "Island roads are different", and indeed they are. They are rather corrugated. One former Transport Minister, who knows the Isle of Wight extremely well, said that the island's geological formation is a road maker's nightmare.
We have some serious traffic problems on the island. We have conducted some experiments, such as removing double yellow lines, to try to improve the lot of local

traders who have suffered from the arrival of large supermarkets on the island, which have absorbed a considerable amount of the traders' business.
Like other hon. Members, I am concerned that my council continues to pursue traders who operate on the pavements. Given that the Isle of Wight is a holiday resort, I think such trading is perfectly reasonable and acceptable, and adds to the holiday atmosphere. I am sad that that trading practice is frowned upon where the pavement is wide enough to allow it.
The island recently received a substantial grant from lottery funds for its housing advice centre. I backed that bid, and I am pleased that the Department of the Environment has also given the centre money. My right hon. Friend might like to know that the Liberal Democrats opposed the allocation of that money, on the ground that the centre was also receiving income from Shelter.
That centre has made a considerable improvement to the advice that young people and those threatened with homelessness receive. It has also assisted them in finding accommodation. The centre is greatly trusted by all parties on the island, because of the excellence and professionalism of its advice. It has made great strides, and its professional, specialist advice has helped to lessen the work load of the CAB. I should like my right hon. Friend to pass on my thanks to Ministers at the Department of the Environment for their support in the early stages of establishing the centre.
The Isle of Wight has a number of bids in for the millennium fund. My own proposal, which I hope will be accepted, is for the establishment of a national civil war museum on the island. As everyone in the House is aware, at the other end of the building lies the arrest warrant for King Charles I, which was served at Carisbrooke on the Isle of Wight.
Although it is understandable that no nation would wish to celebrate a civil war, sufficient years have now passed, and we should try to draw together all the artefacts and historic memorabilia from around the country in one national museum. People could visit it to learn about the incarceration of King Charles 1, and how that affected the island. In due course, I hope that that museum could become a national centre of excellence, as well as an archive of that remarkable period of history.

Mr. Winnick: I do not want to antagonise the hon. Gentleman, because I hope that he will support my private Member's Bill. I have already spoken, so I have no personal motive in asking the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that this is a time-restricted debate. He has spoken for half an hour, and if he continues to speak he will deprive many other hon. Members, Conservative and Labour, of the opportunity of speaking. I have no motive in saying that, other than that I think he is being extremely unfair. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that criticism in the spirit in which it is intended.

Mr. Field: It is Christmas, so I will. I also think that it is extremely unfair that Opposition Members get the same allowance for office costs as I do, when, after the next election I shall have almost half as many constituents again as the rest of them. I make no complaint about that, however, because it is a great privilege to be here. I must repeat that I have never been selfish since I was elected in 1987, and I am coming to a conclusion, but I have just two more points to make.


Under the Budget, the relief on capital gains tax was not extended. The yield from CGT has been considerably reduced because of the roll-over reinvestment available on unquoted shares. To combat that low yield, I suggest to the Treasury that, if the relief was extended to allow for investment in housing associations and external loans for investment in private housing schemes for renting—a Budget proposal—the yield from CGT would not alter, but it would be targeted at the private housing market and give it the oomph it needs.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Evening Standard has recently run an effective campaign about the problems of long leaseholds and landlords who take advantage of them. We have a lot of Victorian property on the island which has been converted into multiple-occupation housing and sold on long leases, so we have had problems with leases in the past. I was interested to note that the Evening Standard mentioned companies that were in a similar location to some that had caused me and my constituents considerable problems.
The cry for more legislation goes up yet again. If the Department of the Environment were to join with the Department of Trade and Industry, their combined weight against a company which is sailing very close to the wind would prove a very effective force. They could apply pressure to the directors of the company, and perhaps make public the organisation's activities. That would be much more effective than again opting for primary legislation, and it might well prove a more speedy solution.
That brings me, finally, to the question of deregulation. As hon. Members know, I am the Chairman of the Deregulation Committee, and it is a matter of personal regret to me that we shall not be able to dance on new year's eve—which falls on a Sunday this year—as dancing is prohibited in this country on a Sunday. I had hoped that the deregulation order would be passed to allow people to celebrate the new year, but the other place decided that that was an inappropriate use of a deregulation order. Therefore, I know that this year our constituents throughout the United Kingdom will sit at home cuddling a cup of Bovril instead of dancing. That is very sad.
In the new year, we should examine deregulation proposals and consider giving local authorities the discretion to exercise some of the powers they used to have. In my keenness to vote in the House for a unitary authority on the Isle of Wight and the Local Government Commission, I was surprised to learn that we were also voting for the commission to consider the issue of parish and town councils. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the old days, if a proportion of the local population—I think that the figure was two thirds, but I may be wrong—declared that they required a parish council, the local authority would put that proposal to the Secretary of State, who could then allow it.
I am now told that that is impossible without a complete review by the Local Government Commission. That band of wandering minstrels rumbles around the country while local communities, that would desperately like to have a parish council are no longer afforded that option. A deregulation order could be brought before the House to deal with that situation, and return that power to local authorities.
If that cannot be done, my noble Friend Lord Mottistone in the other place is in the early stages of producing a Bill with the Government that will allow East Cowes to have a parish council. The Local Government Commission envisaged in its report that the Isle of Wight should have a unitary authority. In his capacity as Lord President of the Council, I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that all Government Departments give full force to my noble Friend's proposals, if that is the only alternative open to the people of the Isle of Wight.

Mr. Tom Cox: Hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have wished Madam Speaker a pleasant Christmas and a happy new year, so I think that it is appropriate to extend the same sentiments to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the many people who serve Members of Parliament in the House. I refer especially to those in the Refreshment Department and in the tearooms, who provide a valuable service and who are never fully appreciated for the work they do.
St. George's hospital, Tooting—one of the major hospitals in south London—is located in my parliamentary constituency. It serves Wandsworth, Merton and Sutton, and no doubt people from other areas attend the hospital for health care and other services. I do not question that it is an excellent hospital which offers good health services and employs a very dedicated team of doctors, nurses and other health service workers.
However, like so many other hospitals in London and in other parts of the country, St. George's faces more and more difficulties in its service provision. I am sure that all hon. Members have read in today's press, and have heard on this morning's radio broadcasts, reports about the problems that many hospitals in the United Kingdom have providing accident and emergency care. That is certainly the case at St. George's hospital.
I visited the St. George's accident and emergency department some months ago at the request of senior doctors, and both doctors and nurses told me about the problems they face. The hospital does not have the provision to meet patients' needs. While St. George's has difficulty finding beds for patients, whole hospital wards are closed. The difficulty of providing home care services in adjoining boroughs for patients who are about to be discharged adds to those problems. Unfortunately, the situation has not improved since my visit—and, in the case of elderly people and those who are most at risk, it has worsened.
John Millard, the consultant physician at St. George's hospital, sent me a letter shortly after my visit to the hospital. In the letter, dated 21 September, he says:
Many thanks for your letter of 15th September. I am so glad that you were able to come to St. George's and see both junior and senior staff who have to work in the system. I will certainly pass your message on to them.
My message was to express my appreciation to the staff for the services they provide in the community. Mr. Millard continued:
I hope your discussions with both Lambeth and Merton are fruitful. Getting elderly patients home, when they no longer need high-tech medical care is a major problem".
I think that that comment clearly outlines the problems at the hospital. However, it is only one aspect of the difficulties that it faces.


Week after week, the Prime Minister and other Ministers cite figures to justify what they believe is happening in the national health service. I do not doubt that money is being spent, but doctors, nurses, local people and Members of Parliament with hospitals in their constituencies know that many Government changes have created a two-tier health service. I put it to the House that London has suffered far more than other parts of the country. Year after year, successive Secretaries of State have told us that there are too many hospital beds in London. In recent years, 2,500 beds have been closed in the Greater London area.
Hospital admissions in the Wandsworth area are much higher than the national average. The number of admissions for elderly people in Wandsworth is in the highest 10 per cent. of the national figures. Against the background that I have outlined, we have seen funding taken from St. George's and allocated to areas far away from London, which is having a disastrous effect on our health services. That is not only my view, but is the view of senior doctors and administrators at the hospital. The Wandsworth health authority loses money every year. Since 1993, our budget has been cut by some 24 per cent. The continuing reduction in expenditure cannot continue without the serious effects that we are now experiencing. I have discussed the matter with the chief executive, senior administrative officers, doctors and nurses at the hospital. They all accept that this is happening, and it will continue, as will their complaints to me and to the Secretary of State for Health.
Regrettably, a major hospital in south London that provides hospital care for in-patients and out-patients has closed wards, and nurses are about to be made redundant. We all know that it will lead to the cancellation of operations and cuts in services for out-patients. Senior doctors rightly complain to me, and we should give them credit for voicing their complaints about those matters, which ultimately will affect patients.
I sought this morning's short debate because the hospital is still set to have its funding cut in the coming years. Where is the sense in following such a policy, when it is roundly and repeatedly condemned by the very people who are seeking to run the services in that hospital?
My speech is not about the national health service in the United Kingdom; it relates solely to one hospital—a very important hospital that meets the needs not only of my constituents but of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Local people share the deep concern of the hospital administrators, the chief executive and senior doctors at the hospital that there is no sense whatsoever in closing hospital wards that are needed and making loyal members of staff redundant because, sadly, insufficient funding is available to that hospital.
It is no good for the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House, as they do week after week, to say how marvellous everything is in the national health service. One only wishes that was true. Sadly, it is not. It is now time for change. That is what people really want, not some time in the future, but with an urgency to face the need to change policies which are having such a regrettable, indeed disastrous, effect on the standards of that hospital—especially for the people in that part of south London who go there for their health provision.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I welcome these Adjournment debates, as they give us the opportunity to raise matters of specific concern to our constituents. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Lord President would address two points when he replies to the debate, as my constituents are interested in them.
The first concerns the incident involving the chief inspector of prisons at HM prison Holloway. There has been much talk about the conditions in that prison, and I would be interested to know what my right hon. Friend has to say on the subject. I hope that he will bear it in mind that my constituents have scant sympathy for those serving prison sentences, as they have clearly offended against society. While we should ensure that our prisons are sanitary, they should be spartan, and not have conditions which are not available in our youth clubs and elsewhere.
Secondly, I should like to raise the vexed subject of Mr. Peter Davis, the national lottery regulator. As I understand it, he used free flights in the United States which otherwise would have been paid for by the taxpayer. He has a reputation as a dry accountant but a person of the utmost probity. Having been in business, I know that there is always pressure to save on one's expenses. If that is the context, it is to be commended, but I should like some assurance from my right hon. Friend on those points.
The debate was opened by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who was concerned about the pernicious campaign against parents when they are asked to decide whether they wish to back the decision of the board of governors for a school to become grant-maintained. It struck a strong chord with me, as I represent a Kent constituency.
Only yesterday, Gravesend received a magnificent Christmas present. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced her approval of the application for grant-maintained status from the Gravesend grammar school for girls. We have been dismayed at the delay in that approval, as the parents voted for that change by an overwhelming majority last July.
Eight out of nine secondary schools, and three of the primary schools, in Gravesham are now grant-maintained. The process has been a remarkable success. St. George's Church of England comprehensive school, the first school in the borough to become grant-maintained, has achieved wonderful results by redeploying 100 per cent. of the resources, balancing the staff against other spending, and getting value for money.
I commend to the House the comments of the chairman of the governors, the Rev. Joe King, who is a well-known Labour party supporter. He makes it clear that he values the school's new freedom and has considerable scorn for so-called specialist support supply by Kent county council.
Meopham school in my constituency, a rural secondary school that was under threat of closure from the county council, is now absolutely thriving. Those involved have used great imagination to make the school the core of the community campus in the village.
Only a few years ago, Southfields school in my constituency had the unenviable status of being bottom of the league of schools in Kent. It is now moving steadily away from the bottom as the school rallies round, using all the discretions available to grant-maintained schools.


It is all most encouraging. The grant-maintained schools system is so successful that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the Opposition spokesman on education, is already well on the way to implying that it was all their own idea in the first place. We know that the Leader of the Opposition scorns his council schools in Islington, and has taken his young son right across London to a leading grant-maintained school. It is all positive. We want parental choice, and other schools to follow the great achievements of schools in Gravesham and in so many boroughs throughout the country.
We should consider the action taken by the Labour party in respect of grant-maintained schools. There have been 12 ballots in Gravesham, and in every one the parents voted by an overwhelming majority in favour. However, they have done so against a background of rumours, falsehoods and the spending of £100,000 of council tax payers' money by Labour-Liberal-controlled Kent county council. It is really dreadful.
There has been a great deal of messing about by the county council. There have been land grabs and disputes over land on campuses and equipment. There have even been problems over the delivery of pay slips and P45s to the teachers in the schools concerned.
The Labour party fought and won the county council elections two years ago on the basis that the borough of Gravesham needed more nursery schools. To date, not a single new one has been provided. When there was one such proposal from a grant-maintained school—the Holy Trinity Church of England school—the Labour-controlled county council opposed it. Having said that Gravesham needed more nursery units, it voted down one such proposal because it came from a grant-maintained school. Thanks only to the action of my hon. Friend the Minister, we now have a new unit serving youngsters in Gravesend.
Gravesend grammar school for girls is now going ahead with grant-maintained status. The delays have been caused by the bogus objections of Kent county council, under the inspiration of the Labour party. One of the objections was that the governors arrived at their decision in only 15 minutes. On investigation, we found that they had held two lengthy meetings to discuss the whole matter, and had deferred the second meeting only so as to allow the KCC area education officer time to confirm the exact details of his offer of an admissions policy for the north-west Kent area.
Another bogus objection which was particularly patronising and insulting to my Sikh constituents was the allegation contained in the following KCC letter:
The ballot documentation supplied by the Electoral Reform Society was made available in the English language only. In an area with a substantial Asian languages speaking population, this will have had the effect of disenfranchising a proportion of the electorate on racial lines.
There is only one large minority in Gravesham—Sikhs from the Punjab, who speak the Punjabi language.
Most of the Sikh community are now second or third generation. The school itself already offers parents a translation service for general education matters, and not one parent has ever felt the need to take it up. Furthermore, not a single student in the school, of Sikh or any other origin, needs English language support on the ground that English is their second language. So this was yet another pernicious example of playing the race card.
Another bogus objection came in the form of the suggestion that the public meeting for parents was not balanced. That cannot be true; the co-chairman of the education committee, a Labour county councillor, attended and spoke at the meeting. Is it thought that parents are so stupid that they cannot hear out a Labour councillor and then make their own minds up?
This was all, of course, a fatuous waste of time, but it delayed the process for five months and endangered the 1996 intake of girls to the school, at a time when parents were facing anxious decisions about the future of their daughters' education. The fact is that the Labour party issues soundbites of approval for GM status, but the reality is quite different.
Our schools in Gravesham have to cope not just with this sort of trench warfare but with other ridiculous nonsense to do with school funding. Last year, Kent county council was given another 2.1 per cent. funding in terms of actual cash, but passed on only a 1 per cent. increase to the budgets of schools—after considerable pressure had been exerted. That resulted in a shortfall of £3.4 million across the county. Weeks later, it was found that—possibly owing to mismanagement—the council had underspent for the previous year by £19 million.
The solution that was obvious to parents and anyone else of sound mind was to put £3.4 million from the £19 million into topping up schools' budgets to the amount that they should have had in the first place. Such a proposal was made by Conservative county councillors, but it was voted down by the Lib-Lab pact, whose members wanted to keep up the party political pressure on parents. Speaking as the parent of three youngsters in state schools in Kent, I do not believe that our youngsters' education should be played around with for party political purposes.
This year, the Government increased the funding for Kent county council by 4.38 per cent.—significantly more than inflation. As education is the top Government priority, the percentage applicable to education is even higher. But what is the prospect of that money getting through to the schools?
A meeting has just been held by Kent county council with the chairmen of governors of schools. At the end of the meeting, just as the Conservative leader of the county council opposition left the hall, up jumped the co-chairman of education—this time a Liberal Democrat—to tell the assembled chairmen of governors that there had been no increase whatever in Government funding. That is game playing of the most inaccurate and damaging kind. What on earth will these councillors do with the budget if their starting point is so inaccurate?
I should like to have spoken on Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, but blocking tactics were used to stop me being the last speaker in the debate, organised by the Labour Whip, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Hence my sympathy in respect of certain recent comments is somewhat thin. Nevertheless, I want to put on record two points that I was unable to make at the time.
I have some personal experience of immigration racketeers. They charge large fees for smuggling immigrants into this country. In Kent, we see immigrants who cannot speak English wandering around the lay-bys of our motorways, where they have been dumped by these miserable intermediaries. Some immigrants have even been suffocated while hidden in the backs of lorries. It is vital that the problem be dealt with soon.


There are also unscrupulous immigration brokers. Time and again, immigrants have been to my surgery to tell me that they have been led on by so-called advisers who charge huge fees. They take their clients through the mass of regulations, and then try to exploit our generous asylum system.
Worst of all are the immigration marriage brokers. They ruin the lives of young constituents of mine. I give the House the example of a 20-year-old British-born Sikh girl who used to work in a large office. One afternoon, she went to her boss and asked for half an hour off. He asked her why she wanted to go out. She replied that she wished to get married, but would be back in half an hour. The boss wondered what was going on. She said that there was a register office just across the road. So she went off and got married, but she did not much like the look of the man who was to be her husband—and then realised that he was an illegal immigrant.
The girl came to see me: could I do something to prevent her having to go through the religious ceremony? It seems that a marriage broker had arranged the marriage with her father and brother; she alleged that money had changed hands for that purpose. She had only one way out—to flee her home and the borough in which she had been brought up. She had to pack her personal belongings in her suitcase, which she had brought from the office, and flee to London that very weekend—a disgraceful episode.
The marriage broker concerned also happened to be the chief executive of the Gravesend Commission for Racial Equality, formerly the Gravesham community relations council, which had a valuable and long-standing record of service to the borough. The Gravesend CRE branch suddenly closed down. The secretary came to me at my surgery to tell me that she had been dumped with no redundancy money and to ask me whether I could help. I approached the chairman of the defunct CRE, a Labour councillor, who told me that there was nothing he could say. I then approached the one-time honorary president of the CRE, another Labour councillor, who was equally unable to help.
It is odd that this marriage broker and former chief executive of the defunct CRE, a Mr. Gurdev Singh Talwar, was also a Labour councillor at the time. For some months now, the Labour party has been throwing allegations of sleaze and secrecy across this Chamber. It is time that the Opposition cleaned up their act and came up with an explanation of what went on in the cases to which I have referred. I also hope that the press will turn to some investigative journalism to shed light on these scandals.
Another aspect of the Asylum and Immigration Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot talk about a Bill which is already before the House. There will be other occasions when he can talk about it, of course. Meanwhile, he can talk freely about the problems of Gravesham, but not about the Bill.

Mr. Arnold: My Sikh constituents, largely because of their origins in the Punjab, depend for their livelihoods on labouring jobs—they work in construction, on roads, in market gardening and so on. For two or three years, they have been telling me that the pay for their jobs is being undercut by people who will work for very much less. They specifically asked, "What are the Government going to do about it? We know that these people are illegal immigrants and bogus asylum applicants." In fact, the Government are acting, and I support them.
Denton, in my constituency, received a good Christmas present from the Government. It has received nearly £2 million from the challenge fund to support project Denton. Moneys from the single regeneration budget will go to a very old part of the borough. It is an area of small streets, in which a new factory has developed. The factory provides 250 jobs in an area of high unemployment. Comma Oil mixes and bottles lubricants and other fluids for the vehicle industry.
Heavy goods vehicles have rumbled through the old streets of Denton to reach the factory, to the distraction of residents. The clear solution was to build a new highway on the other side of Denton. We have never been able to implement that solution, because the local highway authority, Kent county council, has been resolute in not including it in its programme, despite the fact that the Labour co-chair of the relevant county council committee is the local ward councillor.
As a result of wonderful co-operation between the public and private sectors, a deal has been put together that includes a new road. It also includes training and youth opportunities, as well as anti-crime improvements. The deal is a considerable success. It will ensure that the factory will remain in the area. It was going to go elsewhere. I can now disclose that it would have gone to Huntingdon. I could not admit that earlier, because, if the proposed move to that particular constituency had been known about, there might have been a temptation not to approve our grant! Comma Oil is to stay on the site, and there will be an additional 50 jobs. The opening up of other land will create another 250 jobs.
The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) stirred a memory for me. He talked about parishes and a local population, virtually without exception, wanting to create a parish council. That is the position at the village of Vigo in my constituency, which is currently part of the parish of Meopham.
All the residents—I know of no exceptions—wish to establish a parish council in their own right. The mechanism is to go through the Local Government Commission for England. Unfortunately, given the vast amount of work that the commission is undertaking, it will not get on with the job. I hope that the matter can be re-examined, with a view to finding a simplified way of allowing populations, if they wish, to establish a parish council. They should be able to do so.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) should not be suspicious on every occasion about people who nip out from work to get married. Mrs. Banks and I did precisely that. We married and went back to work the same afternoon. She is not, as far as I am aware, an illegal immigrant.
There seems to be a practice—it has almost become a tradition—of Members presenting the House with compilations of their favourite speeches, or perhaps of speeches that they did not make, during these Adjournment debates. I suggest that letters to Ministers or local press releases might be equally appropriate ways of drawing attention to the points they want to raise.
I do not wish to be churlish, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I join all those who have wished you a happy Christmas. Long may I catch your eye, Sir. You might have a happy


Christmas, but after the vote last night, I doubt very much whether the Prime Minister will be able to enjoy his Christmas. I am sure that he would like to wake up on Christmas morning to find all the heads of his Euro-sceptics in his Christmas stocking. He would then, of course, find that his parliamentary majority had disappeared. He is not, of course, able to rely on some Conservative Members these days. I endorse the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who said that the country desperately needs a general election. I suspect that parliamentary arithmetic will force one sooner rather than later on the Prime Minister.
I was not going to be here this morning. I had intended to travel to Zurich for a Council of Europe meeting. Unfortunately, being a practised wally, I left my passport at home. When I reached Heathrow, I found that the British immigration service was more than happy to let me leave the country. I do not know whether that tells me something of which I should be aware. British Midland was superb in arranging things. Unfortunately, those at the Zurich end refused to let me into Switzerland. Who would wish to impersonate a British Member of Parliament these days? That would be outrageous. This episode takes up the theme of illegal immigrants that the hon. Member for Gravesham introduced.
I would not fancy the chances of young Master Tell if I were to shoot at the apple on his head this morning. He would end up looking rather like King Harold.
The debate gives me the chance to raise the case of Mr. Mark Votier. He is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), who is a good friend of mine. She knows that I am raising Mr. Votier's case, and supports me in doing so.
Mr. Votier is a freelance journalist. He was commissioned to film a Japanese whaling expedition in the Antarctic. He was so shocked by what he saw aboard Japanese whaling ships that he released the footage of his film to journalists throughout the world. We saw examples of that footage in newspapers such as the Independent and The Guardian earlier this month. As a result of releasing his film, he is being sued by the Japanese Government's Institute of Cetacean Research for £60,000-worth of damages. Total costs will be another £200,000.
The Japanese are killing minke whales in the southern ocean sanctuary. This year, they will kill no fewer than 440 whales. Mr. Votier went to the area as someone who was not passionately committed to the preservation of whales. If he had been, he probably would not have wanted to go to the area to see what was going on. There are, of course, brave people who are supportive of the anti-whaling movement who are prepared to expose themselves to both dangers and horrors. However, Mr. Votier saw things that appalled him.
Mr. Votier found that 50 per cent. of the minke whales that were caught were only wounded by the harpoon, not killed. The Japanese butchers then put into the minke whale a lance through which they passed an electric force. The force is not sufficient to kill the whale instantly. On average, they took at least eight minutes to die. On one occasion, Mr. Votier saw a minke whale thrashing around for 23 minutes waiting to die while the Japanese put an electric shock through it. That is a whale dying in agony. The Japanese have no right to do this.
We should make a strong protest to the Japanese authorities. The British representatives at the International Whaling Commission met in May. They attempted to use examples of Mr. Votier's film to demonstrate that so-called scientific whaling is butchery by the Japanese. The Japanese vetoed the attempt. They said that the film that the British representatives wished to use—it was shot by Mr. Votier—was illegally obtained.
When Mr. Votier was commissioned, he was told that he must exclude from his film all unsightly tasks—in other words, the sort of things that tell us the truth about what the Japanese are doing to whales in the southern ocean sanctuary. He was told that his film would have to be submitted to the Japanese authorities for censorship.
A spokesman for the agriculture and fisheries division of the Japanese embassy in London denied that whaling was unscientific. He said:
We need to gather scientific data on the age, sex and population of the minke whales in the antarctic.
He claimed that 400 whales had to be slaughtered to satisfy statistical best practice.
The United States, using the Pelly amendment, has censured Japan for its so-called scientific whaling, and Japan is now 90 days away from having sanctions imposed on it. Incidentally, the sanctions will not affect electrical equipment or cars exported by the Japanese—I wish that they did, because that might concentrate their warped little minds. The sanctions will relate only to fishing, but they are still worth imposing, which is why I am asking the British Government to do something.
I have tabled an early-day motion that has been signed by 113 hon. Members, asking for the strongest protest to be made to the Japanese authorities. The case in Tokyo, which involves a British citizen, has been adjourned until 23 January. It is likely to be postponed again for procedural reasons until 20 February, when a decision is expected.
I ask the Lord President to pass on, through the Foreign Office, our strong feeling that the case against Mr. Votier should be dropped. He should not be prosecuted; he should be thanked by world opinion, although not, clearly, by the Japanese. I hope that the Lord President will bear in mind my remarks, and ensure that the necessary pressure, in defence of a British citizen who was doing his job and informing world opinion, is put on the Japanese authorities.

11 am

Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I wish to raise three issues. However, before doing so, I put it on record that I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on some matters. I share his views on animal welfare and agree that an international railway station should be located at Stratford, but we disagree about football—he supports Chelsea and I support West Ham.
I was reflecting on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who mentioned the education of the Leader of the Opposition's child. I was flattered when the leader of the Labour party and his deputy chose to mention me in their speeches to the Labour party conference, but my family is still smarting from the Labour party's delightful comments about me


and the education of my own son. The attack was led by a former Labour Member of Parliament, supported by my defeated Labour rival in the general election for whom no handkerchief is big enough to blub into. However, I do not intend to go into detail about the conduct of those people. I shall wait until the leader of the Labour party and his deputy are present and then put a number of questions to them.
The first matter that I want to raise relates to the Solicitors Complaints Bureau. A number of my constituents are worried about the speed and effectiveness of the bureau. I have often passed on complaints which then meet inordinate delays. I know that the Law Society's new president believes in self-regulation, but I doubt whether self-regulation is in the best interests of our constituents. I am also concerned that the majority of people who sit on the bureau are solicitors. That seems bizarre; I should have thought it was fairer to have a majority of lay people.
Secondly, I wish to draw attention to the Raoul Wallenberg appeal. Some years ago, I introduced a Bill under the ten-minute rule procedure for him to be declared an honorary British citizen. The Bill was not successful so I introduced another, the object of which was to set aside a piece of land so that a suitable monument could be erected to honour him, even though there is still some dispute as to whether he is alive or dead.
I am delighted to be able to say that great progress has been made by the appeal committee under the chairmanship of Sir Sigmund Sternberg, aided by Mr. Lionel Altman and others. Next year, or certainly by the spring of 1997, a monument will be erected to Raoul Wallenberg.
As I am sure the House knows, Raoul Wallenberg was a brave Swedish diplomat who, in 1944, risked everything and saved the lives of more than 100,000 Hungarian Jews. He designed the Schutzpass, a fake document that effectively entitled the bearer to the same protection as that afforded by a Swedish passport, which the Nazis accepted. He did a very brave thing, and I am delighted that a splendid bronze sculpture, to be done by Philip Jackson, is to be erected in the crescent of Great Cumberland place in front of the Marble Arch synagogue. However, in order for that to happen, £100,000 has to be raised, to pay not only for the sculpture but for its maintenance.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will, through the best endeavours of his office, try to secure from the Department of National Heritage a substantial contribution on the nation's behalf to that magnificent sculpture, which is to be unveiled in the not too distant future.
Finally, I deal with local government. Yesterday, the Local Government Commission announced its findings on unitary status for Basildon, Thurrock and other parts of the country. For my part, I have always believed in unitary authorities and very much regret that we have not set about introducing more across the country. I very much want Basildon to be given unitary status. When we examined the matter in the early days, I should have preferred large unitary authorities. It might surprise the House to learn that, although Basildon was very happy to be joined up with other areas, some parts of Essex were reluctant to join up with Basildon. I very much hope that

next year we shall make the firm announcement that Basildon has—perhaps as part of a larger authority—been given unitary status.
In Essex, there is a phenomenon of Liberal and Labour party pacts. The Labour and Liberal parties share a bed on Essex county council, Basildon district council and Southend district council. When the phenomenon first developed, both parties were anxious to see the back of the Conservative party but, since the two socialist parties joined together, they have had something of a falling out.
It is the old story: Opposition parties are adept at articulating problems but they have difficulty in coming up with solutions. When they get power and find that they have difficult decisions to make, there is a falling out.
On Essex county council, Labour and the Liberals have made a complete mess of social services, and care in the community has not been conducted as it would have been under Conservative control. Matters are in such a shambles that the Government have announced an inquiry. On education, Labour and the Liberals have done all that they possibly can to undermine the position of grant-maintained schools in the county. We recently received a letter from the leader of the Liberals on Essex county council, asking the 16 Essex Conservative Members of Parliament to vote against the 1p off income tax announced in the Budget. The Labour party bravely abstained because it worries about votes and about whether such action might make it unpopular and reduce its so-called lead in the opinion polls, but the Liberal Democrats bravely and courageously encouraged us not to go ahead with the penny off income tax.
On extra funding for education, I very much hope that it will be better understood that the Government have put in, as a result of the Budget, a substantial amount of extra money, which will go to education specifically to reduce the size of classrooms. It would be dishonest of any Labour or Liberal politician in Essex to try to deny what the Government have achieved.
What is going on in local government in Basildon at the moment is extraordinary. One is given the impression that the three parties in Basildon are sharing power and agree on everything, but the reality is that Labour and the Liberals vote against the Conservative party on everything. For three years, the Conservatives controlled Basildon district council and sensibly managed our finances so that people's council taxes would not be put up in the future. It has not taken the Labour and Liberal parties long to start wasting that money. Once again, they are setting up area offices. The most extraordinary thing is their handling of local government officers. Everyone in the House believes that local government officers should do their job professionally and not be signed up to any political party. The last time that we had a Labour council in Basildon, the chief executive disappeared, for whatever reason, with no details given of how his removal from office was conducted or, indeed, how much he was given to leave the local authority's employment.
I now find that since the Labour and Liberal parties have controlled Basildon district council, the chief executive, yet again, has disappeared, and his deputy has taken his job—no word of explanation or details about the money that local residents in Basildon were asked to fork out to make that happen. It gets worse. I learnt this week that the previous excellent director of housing in Basildon


is no longer employed by the local authority. Instead, someone who I understood was sacked by the local authority has got his job.
I am not prepared to see those matters swept under the carpet. Given that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats believe in open disclosure, I trust that Members of Parliament will have a word with the local councillors in Basildon to ensure that local residents know precisely what is going on in relation to the conduct of local officers in Basildon.
The country and the world will be celebrating Christmas on 25 December, but I wonder whether there is any profound realisation of what Christmas day is all about. Does it demonstrate that the country and the world believe in God? I hope that the real meaning of Christmas will be better understood by the whole of the population, because if the true spirit of Christmas is understood and followed—not just for one day in the year but for 365—the country and the world will truly he a better place.

Mr. Tarn Dalyell: Before the House adjourns, I seek clarification on two matters, notice of which I gave to the Lord President's officials, I thought prudently, at a quarter to 10: first, the expulsion from this country of Khalifa Barzelya, the head of the Libyan interests section; and, secondly, the veracity or otherwise of the very remarkable presentation in The Guardian of Saturday 16 December by Maggie O'Kane, which relates to the Gulf war. The article forms the foundation of a programme that is to be shown an Channel 4 on 3 January. It raises very important questions of truthfulness or otherwise in relation to the Gulf war.
First, on Khalifa Barzelya: because of Lockerbie, I have come to know him over the past three years relatively well. I really am astonished that he should be considered to warrant expulsion from this country. In the light of the dreadful murder of a Libyan business man, it is the opinion of Scotland yard that Mr. Barzelya was in no way related to that matter.
I must remind the Lord President that, at Heathrow tomorrow evening, a group of relatives will meet in the airport chapel for the seventh anniversary—they meet every year on 21 December—of that dreadful night when the Pan Am Clipper "Maid of the Seas" came down. They are as determined as ever to get to the truth. It is their view, as they know him, too, that Mr. Barzelya has been greatly helpful. My estimate is that he has tried to improve relations between Britain and Libya, and to help the Libyan students that we still have—although not as many as previously—in this country. I ask, therefore, why he is being expelled. When I ask him, he says that he really has no idea; he thinks that it may be because he has been developing associations with a number of academics and, indeed, politicians. I have to say that the politicians are "undesirables" like the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on the Conservative Benches and myself on the Opposition Benches.
If such contact is really creating trouble for the Foreign Office or the security services, it is outrageous that no explanation has been given. Therefore, I make a suggestion to the Lord President. We have a statutory committee on security. Could Mr. Barzelya's case be

referred to it? I know better than to ask that I should be given some explanation from the security services, but that presumably is why we set up the committee, which is a non-House of Commons body, as I understand it, under the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
I would be quite satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman were to say, "My Committee and I have seen the evidence and, on the basis of the evidence, the Government are quite justified," but, really, one does want some kind of objective assessment, because let us be clear about how damaging it is. Of course, tit-for-tat, David Hawkes has been told to get out of Tripoli. The Government should remember that there are some 5,000 of our citizens earning their bread and butter in one way or another, mostly in the Cyrenaican desert and mostly for firms such as Brown and Root. They want some kind of presence in the British interests section of the Italian embassy in Tripoli.
I could go on and on about the damage to British industry and to one of our traditional markets. The managing director of Babcock made it very clear that he would not have had to pay off some 400 skilled people in Renfrew the other day had we still had the traditional Libyan order.
No doubt I will be contradicted if I am wrong, but I fear that this has something to do with the on-going Lockerbie business, and the feeling that certain elements in the Government want an easy excuse not to hold a trial in The Hague with Scottish rules of evidence and under a Scottish judge. After seven years, any Government who wanted the truth would surely compromise to some extent, and go along with what has been offered. I have to say that I believe that the last thing that the British Government want is any kind of trial that would bring these matters to a head.
The second issue that I wish to raise relates to the article that appeared in The Guardian last Saturday. I want to ask three questions. First, are the satellite photographs from the Soyuz Karta genuine? If not, what happened in connection with the massive build-up on the Kuwaiti border about which we had been told? When I did my national service with the Royal Scots Greys, now the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, we were taught to read aerial photographs. I am no great expert, but it appears that the aerial photographs that were so crucial during the Gulf war do not show the build-up that served as the justification for that war.
Secondly, let me refer to specific statements that were made in The Guardian about dead babies. According to the article,
Dead babies are nothing new. During the German invasion of Belgium in the first world war, stories circulated in Britain and France of Belgian babies being butchered by German soldiers wielding bayonets. There's always a dead baby story. The story of how Iraqi troops, in the first days of the invasion, went into al Adan hospital, tore the sick babies from incubators and left them on the cold floor to die, was graphically told to Congress in November, 1990—before a crucial vote—by Niyirah al Sabah who, unknown to her audience, was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US. In her tearful testimony, she said she had witnessed the Iraqi troops' brutality when she worked as a volunteer in the maternity ward.
About 100 yards from the front of the al Adan hospital in Kuwait City is a white two-storey building which houses about 50 nurses. Nurse Myra Ancog-Cooke is a Filipino nurse. Six months after the war ended, I found her still working in the hospital. She poured tea and told her story—a story which for me sowed the first seed of suspicion about the tales and half-truths that marked the build-up to


the Gulf war. A staunch Catholic, she explained that it was her duty and God's will that she stayed to care for the sick. She was assigned to the children's ward and took it in turns with the other Filipino nurse who stayed behind, Freida Contrais-Naig, to sleep in the incubator room with the babies.
'I remember someone called and said, "Look at CNN, they are talking about us." We watched and it was strange seeing that girl telling them about the Iraqis taking the babies out of the incubators. I said to Freida, "That's funny, we've never seen her. She never worked here." We didn't think very much about it really. We were more excited seeing our hospital on the television.' Later, Amnesty, who had also been duped by the testimony, admitted they'd got it wrong. Andrew Whitley of Middle East Watch described it as a fabrication, but it took months for the truth to come out.
Meanwhile, President Bush mentioned the incubator babies in five speeches and seven senators referred to them in speeches backing a pro-war resolution. Subsequently, Hill and Knowlton were unabashed that the media worldwide, the UN Security Council and the US Congress had been deceived by a 15-year-old girl who had been 'trained' by a public relations firm. Lauri Fitz-Pegado of Hill and Knowlton, who prepared six witnesses who corroborated the incubator story to Congress, told John Macarthur, author of The Second Front, a book on censorship in the Gulf War: 'Come on John, who gives a shit whether there were six babies or two. I believed her.' The invading Iraqi army did rape, kill and torture in Kuwait, and that's what the world wanted to read.
Highly exaggerated reports of thousands of deaths were accepted uncritically, as the PR firm, using Kuwaiti contacts inside the country, smuggled 24 videotapes to hungry and unquestioning mass media. The tone was set, and the tide was running in the Kuwaiti Government/Hill and Knowlton direction—war.
That raises serious issues in relation to the role of public relations firms in general, and Hill and Knowlton in particular. In considering our role in the Gulf war, the British House of Commons is entitled to ask the Government whether what was published last Saturday, and what I understand is to be shown on 3 January, is true or false. I have given the Minister's officials some warning, and I hope that the Minister will give at least a preliminary reaction in his winding-up speech.
Let me ask my final question. According to the logs, the British, French and Soviets also detected chemicals flowing down wind from the Iraqis' chemical and biological stations, which had been bombed. This is not the occasion for me to go into detail about the problems of some of our constituents who may have suffered from the effects of chemical weapons; let me simply ask the Government whether they propose to give a considered response once they have seen the film, which goes to the heart of the truthfulness of the statement that has been made by Maggie O'Kane.

Mr. Sebastian Coe: I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak. I shall break with tradition—not, I hasten to add, with the protocol or the great traditions of this place. I intend to speak briefly about a subject about which I have not spoken in the House before, although it has been pretty close to my heart for many years: sport.
If the House will indulge me for a few minutes, I shall set the scene. I feel some concern—in fact, "concern" is probably too strong a word; I feel some nervousness—about one aspect of sport that has been highlighted in the past year or so. Governing bodies in sport—and, probably, the House at some stage—may wish to consider it, especially in view of the forthcoming passage of the Broadcasting Bill. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that sport is important—it matters.
In 1989, just before I left the Sports Council as its vice-chairman to throw my hat into the political arena—obviously, I did not crave job security at that stage—I commissioned some work on its behalf by the Henley research centre, which identified two or three key statistics on the way in which sport was valued in this country. In the late 1980s, about 22 million people identified themselves as being involved in sport regularly at one level or another. I have no reason to believe that that number has decreased; in key sectors, it will have increased. That is getting on for roughly half the population. It is probably one of the most popular activities that could be identified in such statistical terms.
In economic terms, by the end of the 1980s, sport was about the fourth largest employer. It employed more than the car and petrochemical industries and the agricultural sector put together. It accounted for about £3.5 billion-worth of high street retail sales, which had it alongside, and in some areas outstripping, electrical goods and even, for a time, cassettes and other audio equipment.
That is a long-winded way of saying that sport matters and that people recognise that it matters. There is no hon. Member sitting in the House today who does not have sports clubs in his or her constituency. They are either closely attached to such clubs or recognise their work, whether they be in rural areas or in inner cities.
One of the key arguments that has always raged within sport, sports administrations and sports governing bodies—it raged especially during my time at the Sports Council—involved sports funding and whether the funds that were available, through the private or public sectors, should be distributed towards the excellence end of sport or towards its participation end, remembering that the Sports Council's royal charter specifically gave it the remit to increase participation in sport. We recognise that those were and remain key arguments.
Throughout a number of years in sports administration and certainly as a competitor, my belief has been that, in relation to participation and excellence and funding, we cannot have one without the other. We recognise the old pyramid argument that one needs a firm base through which the Daley Thompsons, Steve Ovetts, Steve Crams and Paul Gascoignes emerge. One also needs, however, specifically to target sport at the excellence end, either through our national sports centres or possibly through the development of an academy of sport—a whole range of issues exists here.
We recognise that some countries have targeted specifically and very well. The Swedes produced Bjorn Borg and Stefan Edberg; the Germans, in exactly the same way, identified what I suppose one could describe as a niche market, through which the Steffi Grafs and Boris Beckers emerged. There is, therefore, a gentle and fairly subtle balance in all that.
The landscape of sport in relation to its public face has changed dramatically, even since the time I was serving at the Sports Council. I wish that I had had available to me in the late 1980s the sort of budget that is now available through the mechanisms of the national lottery and the Sports Council grant. At that time, basically, the public face of British sport was run on about £40 million a year, which was significantly less than the Arts Council grant, but I do not wish to revisit old griefs.
"Raising the Game" is probably one of the best pieces of political thought that has gone into sport since 1945 and is something that hon. Members on both sides of the


House agree should be welcomed. In the development of sport, whether with regard to competition in school, the maintenance of school sport, linking clubs—where there is now probably more coaching expertise than in schools—with schools and ensuring that funding is appropriate and resources are available as and where they are genuinely needed, "Raising the Game" was probably the single most important contribution that this place and Government have made for many years.
The general populace's access to top-class sport concerns me. We are not all likely to turn up at Wimbledon and lie in our sleeping bags for three days to obtain tickets for Centre court. We recognise that the majority of people who watch sport at the highest level do so through their television sets. I wish that more people turned up and actively supported sport, but that genie is not likely ever to be put back in the bottle. We must recognise that the main vehicle for sports promotion is television.
One of my concerns is that, if we are to maintain participation levels and excellence, we must maintain people's maximum access to sport on television. That difficult issue must be confronted, given the nature of some of the contracts that are being drawn up between sports governing bodies and television, the balance of terrestrial television and satellite television in particular, and the advent of pay-per-view, which, for the majority of sports fans in the United States of America, remains the most important access that they have to television sport.
Back in the 1950s, we produced a protected list of events. It was ostensibly to ensure that there was no likelihood that one of the key events—the World cup, the Olympic games, the English FA cup final or Scottish FA cup final—was protected from a monopoly broadcast. The protected list was put together to ensure that the majority of people had access to sport at that level. Satellite television is now in the arena, looking to and making hard progress towards the sort of exclusive deal that is likely to cause hon. Members concern in relation to access to some of the more traditional sports.
I was interested to be a bystander—a seated bystander, I hasten to add—at an Adjournment debate some months ago when hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke passionately about the deal that was being struck between Sky television, the Murdoch organisation and rugby league. Your colleague, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Sir G. Lofthouse), is well known for his strong rugby league background. One of my more cherished memories of that debate is of the hon. Gentleman trying to hold back his anger about developments in a sport that hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially those with northern constituencies, recognise as causing concern.
I hope that we do not deprive the average sports fan of access to top-class television sport. In a few months' time, the Broadcasting Bill is due to be considered by the House and, when it does, perhaps we can visit that issue. Perhaps we could debate it in terms not of strong or tight prescriptive measures on governing bodies or television, but of how they might develop negotiations with satellite or terrestrial television authorities.
One issue that we could visit relates to highlights packages. In a few months the World cricket cup competition will be held in India and Pakistan. The

agreement between Sky television and the world cricketing bodies was for exclusive coverage, but the original discussions agreed that the highlights package would be available to the BBC. I understand that that package will not be available and that means that, for large parts of the year, a generation of young cricket fans will have limited television access to their sport. Of course, domestic test matches will remain on the protected list, but we shall have to make sure that highlights packages for overseas tours are available.
In their negotiations with satellite companies, the governing bodies should carefully consider entering into contractual agreements that preclude terrestrial television showing such packages. It is in the interests of the governing bodies to have the maximum number of people wanting to take up their sport, whether that is badminton, cricket, football or track and field. Numbers are their life blood and, if they are limited, the ultimate price to be paid is that people will turn away from sports to which they do not have ready access on television and will find other sports. I gently suggest to governing bodies that might be negotiating at this moment that, if they are not careful, they may slaughter the goose that lays the golden egg.
Sport is important and it should remain accessible to as many people as possible. It has gained a political status in this place that most of us who were working in the vineyard in the 1980s did not think would come about so quickly. I am grateful for that, but I am still nervous about the other issues.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is just under half an hour to the winding-up speeches. Five hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate and I ask for short speeches so that all five may take part.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate this opportunity to take part in the debate. This is the season of good will, but on the first Christmas people were too busy with their own interests to care about others, and there was the murder of the innocents. I do not say whether the person who was murdered last evening in my constituency was innocent, but that murder reflects the issue that we must keep before us—there can be a tendency in society to excuse certain events because people might have deserved what happened to them. The House should give a clear signal that lawlessness in any guise is unacceptable in a democratic society. I know that we will sympathise with the widow and children who in this Christmas season have the harrowing experience of such a tragic loss.
Just before the House rose last Christmas I had an Adjournment debate on traffic flows in Belfast. Is the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland serious about dealing with some of the road congestion that remains? One of the blights in my constituency that affects housing and health is the Broadway roundabout for the west link and the Donegall road. Is it the Department's policy not to have flyovers? If it is, it has never been stated publicly. Is the Department concerned about the topography and geology in the area: I understand that there are two underground rivers there? There is also an electrical cable and that causes similar problems. We have


constantly been told that the delay in taking action is due to lack of finance. Are there other reasons that the Department is not prepared to reveal?
I should like to speak about the problem of vetting procedures, especially as they affect people from Northern Ireland. One of my constituents went to Edinburgh university and volunteered for the officer training corps and encouraged one of her room mates to join. The room mate was accepted, but because my constituent had a Northern Ireland background she had to be vetted and, despite letters to the Minister about the issue, she has not been cleared.
I understand the need for vetting, but I also understand the deep hurt that is felt by my constituent's father, an Englishman who served in the Royal Navy for 18 years, and by her grandfather, who served in the Royal Ulster Rifles for more than 30 years. They are dismayed that she is so vetted that she cannot take her place with her friends. The same pattern was evident in a London constituency when the granddaughter of a former councillor and high sheriff of Belfast, who never lived there and whose father was an Englishman, was subjected to long vetting procedures simply because of the Northern Ireland connection.
A colleague engaged an aide in his constituency office and sought to get him a pass so that his bona fides were acceptable here. Although that aide had 30 years' service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, vetting took three months. I am not sure whether it is a matter of job protection or whether some people with cosy jobs, even part-time ones, do not realise the impact of such vetting. Perhaps they do not give the matter the attention that is necessary, although I am convinced that much of the vetting is unnecessary.
I have no intention of delaying the House. I have made my points succinctly but definitely, and I seek clear answers.

Mr. Michael Stephen: I wish Madam Speaker, her three deputies and all the clerks and servants of the House a very peaceful Christmas and a happy new year.
In the short time available I would like to say a few words about Britain's relations with Europe. Britain is a European country, but it is very different from its continental neighbours. It is a maritime country. Our world interests are far-ranging and go back a very long time. Britain is a pragmatic country. Our common law is built on practical decisions made by judges in actual cases throughout the years, step by step—not for us the grand design, the "code Napoleon".
The exchange rate mechanism was a very good example of European grand design that ended in disaster. Instead of trying, as we would have done step by step on a pragmatic basis to build up a system of aligned currencies firmly based in the economies of the countries concerned, the imposition of an artificial structure from above with deadlines and timetables was attempted, and it collapsed under its own weight, as most of us knew that it would. It was rather like fiddling with the oil pressure gauge on a car instead of attending to the engine. Market rates cannot be rigged, as King Canute would have told us if he had still been here. Perhaps it is not insignificant that King Canute was a Dane.
Britain has had to go to the rescue of Europe three times in recent history—in 1815, 1914 and 1939—and, throughout the ages before 1815, Britain's policy has always been to maintain the balance of power in Europe. We have not been pro-French or anti-German. We have not been pro-German or anti-French. We allied with the French if the Germans began to get too powerful, and with the Germans if the French began to get too powerful. It worries me that such a strong Franco-German alliance is developing in Europe and I worry about the future balance of power in Europe. That ought to worry the French, the Germans and all the other Europeans too.
As for external security, it has not been the European Union that has protected us from war since 1945 but NATO, and the involvement of our American allies. Let no one ever lose sight of that or ever think that the Western European Union could take the place of NATO.
We are good Europeans and, as such, it is our duty to advise, to warn, and, if necessary, to say no. A single currency is a matter of enormous political significance. It is being sold to people on the basis that they will not have to pay exchange costs when they change their money. If they think that the banks will not find another way to extract that amount of money from their pockets, they are very naive.
The single currency would prevent us from setting our own interest rates, tax policy, public borrowing policy and exchange rates. Since the economies of Europe would not be able to move in relation to each other by shifting their exchange rates, massive subsidies would be required. It could all end in tears, just like the ERM.
We fought a civil war in this country 350 years ago to place in the hands of the elected representatives of the people the control of the purse strings, and we should not lightly allow that control to slip into the hands of bankers—who have not covered themselves with glory during the past 20 years—and certainly not foreign bankers.
The opt-out that the Prime Minister negotiated for us at Maastricht was one of his greatest achievements. It may well be that if other countries decide to go ahead and form a single currency, we might be better off outside it—no one can tell at this stage. The City of London is used to dealing with all manner of currencies; it would not matter to the City whether we were in or out of a single currency. What matters to the City is the cost of doing business in London—the cost of regulation.
The questions that the Prime Minister put in Madrid were pertinent, and we need answers to them before we can decide whether to take this momentous step. It would be very foolish to rule in or rule out Britain's membership of a single currency at this stage, as the Prime Minister is often urged to do. Although it seems almost inconceivable that we will join a single currency in the foreseeable future, it is a constitutional principle in this country that no Parliament can bind its successors. Therefore, even if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wished to rule out Britain's membership of a single currency within the lifetime of the next Parliament, he could not do so.
I am concerned, too, about the activities of the European Court of Justice. It proceeds by virtue of the civil law tradition, not the step-by-step, pragmatic approach of our common law judges. Continental judges adopt what is called a purposive construction. Put simply, it means that, by basing their judgments on general principles, they can make the treaties mean anything they want them to mean,


which is very dangerous. It means that we are forced to comply with rules to which we would never have agreed had they been spelled out in the treaties.
For example, we would never have allowed the European Court to interfere in relations between the Ministry of Defence and serving soldiers, whether male or female. The European Court of Justice must be put on the agenda of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, and some effective way must be found to clip the wings of these judicial legislators.
I am also concerned about the European Court of Human Rights, an organ not of the European Union but of the Council of Europe. We signed the European convention on human rights just after the second world war to protect the peoples of Europe against gross abuses of human rights perpetrated by fascists and communists. We did not sign that convention to allow foreign judges to interfere in every nook and cranny of our national life, so that we could be told whether we could cane schoolboys in our schools. There are hon. Members on both sides of the argument on caning, but it is a matter for this country to decide. This Parliament is perfectly capable of deciding such matters and it is no business of European judges to tell us whether we can cane our schoolboys.
It is also no business of European judges to tell us whether our courts martial system can continue. It has been the basis of our military discipline and, partly as a result of it, we have some of the finest armed forces in the world. Defence is entirely outside the competence of the European Union and I do not know how it could be argued that the European Court of Justice has any right to interfere in defence matters in relation to pregnant service women or anything else.
There is no such prohibition, however, in relation to the European Court of Human Rights and therefore it is entitled, if it so wishes, to tell us what we can and cannot do in relation to courts martial. I believe that we should make it very clear to the judges of the European Court of Human Rights that Britain will not tolerate interference in defence matters. If the European Court of Human Rights will not restrain itself, we may have to exercise the right conferred on us by article 65 and withdraw from the European convention on human rights altogether. I fear that our own courts are also getting into bad habits. They are being led on by the European courts to make much more use of their powers of judicial review than they ever did before.
Democracy depends on a delicate balance between the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. British and European judges must resist the temptation to trespass too far into the field that the people have entrusted to their elected representatives.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: I am delighted to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to wish you a merry Christmas. I wish a successful new year to all my colleagues who have remained in the Chamber, although I think that we might define success in different ways.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to return to an issue that I first raised when the House resumed after the summer recess on 15 October. It may be fitting, on the

day before we break for Christmas, to highlight it again. It is the tragic and fatal mining accident that occurred on 12 October at Thoresby colliery in Nottinghamshire.
We were promised an inquiry into the accident. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), said in written replies and correspondence with me that an inquiry was under way. I have also been in touch with the director general of the Health and Safety Executive, who has confirmed that an inquiry is taking place. So far we have merely had a press statement, which the Health and Safety Executive released at the end of October, confirming what we already knew: that there was an inrush of gas, oil and water and one man lost his life. We have not yet had a detailed report on the causes of the accident.
It is essential that the men who work in the industry and the wider community know the cause of the accident so that precautions can be taken and best practice can be put into operation.
Rumour and speculation abound in Nottinghamshire about the accident. Some say that it was caused by old oil industry boreholes, while others maintain that the evacuation procedures were not properly followed. Men who work down the colliery persistently complain that, before the accident, there were severe smells—worse than normal—in the pit.
On the day of the accident, R.J. Budge (Mining), which now operates the pit, did not contact all the mining unions. I remind the Leader of the House that Sir Bernard Crossland's inquiry into the Bilsthorpe colliery accident stressed the need for all unions to be involved because pit safety is a matter not just for management but for all those who work at a pit; no one should be denied the knowledge about the cause of an accident.
It is now two months since the accident and we are still waiting for a report. It is essential that we have one, but it is equally vital that a wider look is taken at pit safety. This is the first year in which the deep-mine coal industry in Britain is operating under private ownership and the record for major accidents appears to have deteriorated. It is common knowledge in the mining community that the number of major incidents has increased over the year. I am told that, at the end of October, the number of incidents was 64, compared with 42 in the previous period when the industry was controlled by British Coal. It therefore appears that major incidents have risen by 50 per cent.
When I wrote to the director general of the Health and Safety Executive asking whether the figures were correct, he could not confirm them. That gives rise to serious concerns because the HSE was set up to prevent accidents and promote good practice. It is not satisfactory that it should be unable to come clean about those figures. It clearly has the figures but will not release them. That is bad practice because working in the deep-mine coal industry is still a dangerous activity. I am not exaggerating when I say that it is a matter of life and death. Men's lives depend on examining accidents and propagating the knowledge gained so that precautions can be taken to stop them occurring again.
I hope that the Leader of the House has listened carefully to my complaints and will use his best endeavours to ensure that the report that we have been promised, which is now two months overdue, is soon put into the public domain.


Most important, I hope that he will read early-day motion 165, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others, which states that mining records should be kept on a pit-by-pit and company-by-company basis so that we can identify what is going wrong. Those of us associated with the industry know that accidents will occur in pits, but we are determined to ensure that, when a tragedy occurs, we learn from it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wish to raise the case of a young constituent of mine, Neil Edwards from Creswell, who has suffered a serious accident. I promised that I would draw it to the House's attention in view of the bizarre circumstances that surround it. It is a story about declining safety standards in industry, fraud by an employer, lack of regulation and a dereliction of duty by the Health and Safety Executive.
Neil Edwards found a job advertised in a jobcentre to work at a sawmill in Clumber park, Worksop. He had been a building worker and had been laid off, so he took the job. The sawmill was owned by a fellow called Philip Gray and was run on land owned by the National Trust. Neil Edwards had been working there only since 9 September 1994 when he suffered a serious injury. All kinds of logs were lying on the ground and he slipped on one. As no proper guards protected employees from the machinery, his hand went into a machine and he was lucky to escape with his life. He was given emergency treatment and extensive surgery at hospital but lost part of his hand and fingers.
Neil Edwards' employer did not even report the serious accident under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985. As a result, the Health and Safety Executive was not informed of it and Neil Edwards' mother had to inform the HSE herself. It then examined the accident but did not prosecute, despite the fact that, only a few years previously, another employee, Mr. Ryan, had lost three fingers at the same sawmill.
As Neil's employer had not even paid sickness benefit, Neil Edwards decided to claim compensation from him under common law regulations. His employer told him, "Here's a few quid, kid. Keep your mouth shut," but young Neil refused to take the money. He decided that his employer was acting contrary to the law and took action to try to claim compensation. Despite the fact that wealthy people such as Roger Levitt and the Maxwell brothers were granted legal aid, young Neil Edwards was at first refused it. He would obviously never be able to work in the building industry again so he tried to get a few bob for having lost part of his hand, yet he could not even claim legal aid. I intervened and managed to get legal aid to take up the case.
I attempted to get common law payments. As former miners for a number of years before we came to this House, you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would simply have taken action through the responsible lawyers and, as a result, the National Coal Board or British Coal would have had to foot the bill. In this case, there was no money because the employer had not even taken out compulsory liability insurance. He did not pay sickness benefit, did not have liability insurance, had not guarded the machinery correctly and had broken the law because he did not even report the case to the Health and Safety Executive.
The HSE was informed that liability insurance had not been taken out. It could have fined the employer, Philip Gray, £1,000 per day. Under this tawdry Government, who seem not to care—they are against regulation and all the rest of it—the Health and Safety Executive did nothing. It did not even rap him over the knuckles. It discovered that Mr. Gray had no assets, or said he had not, although he has been running a business, making a profit and doing so for several years. The legal aid lawyers said that they were unable to discover whether the man had assets that they could claim against so that Neil Edwards could get proper compensation.
The battle is still going on. I call on the Leader of the House to get in touch with the appropriate Government Departments, which are those that control or have some connection with the Health and Safety Executive, to ensure that it does its job correctly, to bear in mind cases like this when they talk about fraud by employees on the Department of Social Security, and to ensure that Philip Gray carries out the duties for which he is responsible.
As we all know, the Health and Safety Executive is just another quango. We have just found out that the medical wing is to be cut by 25 per cent., and that 14 senior HSE posts are to go. The story goes on and on. That may be why employers feel confident about taking risks with workers' safety. Not prosecuting criminals gives a green light to other bosses who are contemplating taking such risks. If the Government are so keen on law and order, they should look no further than the bosses whom they protect. Deregulating health and safety law for employers is a sure way of maiming more people like Neil Edwards.
Postscript: the Worksop jobcentre has just put another advertisement in the window to advertise Neil Edwards' job. The employer is carrying on. Neil Edwards has got no benefits. It is time that the Government did something about it.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a powerful case on behalf of his constituent. If we had had a little more time, we might have heard more details. My hon. Friend was the 13th hon. Member to speak this morning. That demonstrates the failure of this debate, which is part of a series of pre-Adjournment debates. Normally, about 20 hon. Members manage to contribute in the three hours. By and large, it has been a tradition for hon. Members to speak briefly and to raise no more than one or two subjects—that has always been my experience. Unfortunately, two speeches ran to 55 minutes, which has prevented all hon. Members who wished to participate from doing so.

Mr. Harry Barnes: As you realise, Madam Speaker, I am the only hon. Member who has been present throughout the debate and who has been seeking to speak, but has been unable to do so. By taking 55 minutes, the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) have prevented me from speaking on the state of our democracy. It might have been useful if I had been able to make my speech, so that they could respond. Obviously, they do not act within its spirit.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend made the point that I was trying to make, but did so much more clearly. I hope that


the Leader of the House will take that on board and that those who organise our business will do so to enable the maximum number of Members to benefit from this brief debate, which occurs only four times a year before a recess.
I cannot refer to all the speeches—I cannot even attempt to answer what amounted to an Adjournment debate about the Isle of Wight. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) made a powerful case about the difficulties in his constituency and the creation of a two-tier health service. That case has to be answered and is typical of what is happening throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) referred to the difficulties at Holloway prison.

Mr. Tony Banks: He is not here.

Mr. Rooker: That may be so, but I still intend to raise this point.
The hon. Member for Gravesham made it clear that he had no sympathy for the inmates of Holloway prison. If the reports of the past few days are true and all the problems at Holloway prison were raised with the Minister of State, Home Office in July of this year, the situation at the prison should have come as no surprise when the inspectors walked in. Yesterday, one newspaper reported that a pregnant prisoner at Holloway was shackled to a male officer while undergoing an antenatal examination. Is that report about the situation inside the prison and the overzealousness true? That situation is disgraceful. People have lost their liberty. That is the penalty that we impose on them—we do not impose other penalties. If that report is true, it is unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Gravesham also mentioned—and other hon. Members were planning to do so—the lottery regulator and the astonishing decision taken by the Secretary of State for National Heritage yesterday evening. As a senior Cabinet Minister, will the Leader of the House say whether it is true that senior Cabinet Ministers ganged up on the National Heritage Secretary to keep that discredited regulator in his place, to avoid adverse publicity? Clearly, the man has lost the confidence of those in public affairs, who are concerned with the good name of the lottery. It has been an outstanding success and there is no argument about that, but the fact that he appears to have done nothing to stop Camelot selling the names of winners to junk mail firms adds to disquiet about its regulation. That is unacceptable and I warn the Leader of the House that the problem will not go away by keeping the gentleman in his job just to save some adverse publicity. It will probably rebound on this accident-prone Government early in the new year and it will be their own fault when it does.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made a powerful point about the British citizen who is the subject of the vagaries of Japanese court action over the disclosure of the horrific scenes from Japanese whaling activities. The majority view in the House is that the hypocrisy of the Japanese about whaling is well known. They have always lied about the purpose of experimental whaling. It is well known where the meat ends up. The international community has not taken the matter seriously. I hope that there is no even-handedness

or soft-glove treatment on the part of the Government simply because the Secretary of State for Defence is trying to persuade the Japanese to contribute troops to Bosnia. For all we know, it might be, "We'll keep quiet on this, if you help us out on the other."

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Come off it.

Mr. Rooker: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that. That is how things are done—behind closed doors.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: No. I ask the Leader of the House to deny that that is true and to give a commitment that the British Government will take a strong and positive stand against what the Japanese are doing and the fact that they are penalising a British citizen for making it known.
Several hon. Members mentioned education. In the brief time available, I want to raise a side issue, but one that is important. In the past few weeks, many of my hon. Friends have mentioned the position of the 400 colleges of further education, which serve 2.5 million students. It is becoming clear that the 5,000 governors of those colleges are in a very uncertain position regarding their financial liabilities. I must declare an interest as I was a governor for more than 20 years. We cannot get an answer from the Department for Education and Employment about the liabilities of such governors. They are not in the same position as directors or trustees, but they are the governors of a statutory, set-up authority.
Due to the effects of the Budget, some of those colleges will probably become insolvent in the forthcoming year. There needs to be a clear statement that, in terms of public service—these are unremunerated positions, by the way—those governors will not be placed at a worse risk than trustees and company directors. The Nolan committee is considering that aspect, although it is not considering protection for those 5,000 governors. If governors are put at risk because of the refusal of the Department for Education and Employment to make a clear statement, it will ruin the tradition of voluntary public service in this country. It is no good saying, as the Department for Education and Employment has more or less said, that one governor will have to take a test case to court. That is quite unacceptable. Many hon. Members have spoken about education issues, but that particular aspect deserves detailed examination by the Government early in the new year.
Before the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) was elected to the House, many of us sat in front of our television sets and cheered him on as he ran for this country. The situation has, of course, changed since he entered the House, and today it was interesting to listen to him talk about sport—some of us thought that he might talk about fishing. I regret that you were not in the Chair at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the hon. Gentleman, who is a powerful source for such comments, spoke about the possible television tyranny of sport—I use my words, not his—and particularly cable television's shackling of rugby league players.
The House, particularly the Government, should listen to the hon. Gentleman's warning, which has also come from other hon. Members. Access to televised sporting


events will be denied to millions of people in this country, which is unacceptable. If the Government want to avoid any defeats over the forthcoming Broadcasting Bill, they had better get the Bill and the policy right. There will be support from both sides of the House to ensure that millions of citizens of this country are not denied access to top sporting events, as that would damage future generations.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): There has been unanimity on one aspect of the debate: wishing the occupant of the Chair—Madam Speaker or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a happy Christmas, but no one has seen fit to wish the Leader of the House a happy Christmas. If I were to seek to respond fully to everything that has been raised with me today, I would still be here at Christmas. I do not think that even my worst opponents in the House would wish that upon me.
All our Christmases have been brightened by the Swiss immigration authorities, to whom we owe the presence of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who made his usual vigorous remarks. I doubt whether the Japanese Government would welcome his presence here today as much as we do, but he has certainly improved the quality of our debate. I am tempted to express the hope that the Swiss immigration authorities might have let him in because, as he did not have a passport, our authorities might not have let him back in. As this is Christmas, however, I do not think that I will pursue that matter any further.
I acknowledge that I shall clearly be unable to comment on all the speeches. Various hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), raised important constituency issues and I shall ensure that those points, as well as any others that I do not cover, are drawn to the attention of the relevant Ministers.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) raised a specific point on whaling and I was slightly surprised that he did not know—I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West does—that the United Kingdom has been consistently critical of Japanese whaling for research purposes. At meetings of the international whaling conference we have played a major part in the adoption of several resolutions calling on countries to stop lethal research whaling in International Whaling Commission sanctuaries and for research on whales anywhere to be conducted using non-lethal means, except in exceptional circumstances. We have made it clear that we object to the use of the electric lance in that context. There is no doubt about the United Kingdom Government's position—that should be firmly on the record.
I understand that the legal action in Japan involving Mr. Votier is not a criminal prosecution but a civil lawsuit taken out by the Japanese Institute of Cetaceous Research, if I have the title correct. For the British Government to seek to interfere in civil proceedings in another country would not be easy—it would be difficult enough to interfere in criminal proceedings. I hope that that point will be registered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and the hon. Member for Perry Barr raised two important issues: Holloway and the lottery regulator.

On the subject of Holloway, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, to whom I was speaking about the issue yesterday, visited Holloway last year, and as a result of that visit action was already being taken. In October more than £300,000 was added to Holloway's budget to provide extra staff and fully trained new staff are due to join next month. Senior management at headquarters are working with the governor to set firm targets for improvements and dates by which the targets should be achieved. Yesterday, arrangements were made to send 16 staff on loan to Holloway from other establishments to help ease the immediate problems. I hope that I have been able to give the hon. Member for Perry Barr some information and some reassurance that the problem is not only recognised but is already being tackled.
On the issue of the lottery regulator, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham will have read the letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage to the regulator, dated yesterday, in which she made it clear that she expects him to
maintain a proper distance from the company"—
Camelot—
and its constituent parts, and be seen to do so, taking all steps to guard against possible misunderstanding
of his actions.
In her letter my right hon. Friend drew attention to a number of factors, which I hope the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will, at the very least, bear in mind. The visits to America—the subject of the controversy—took place some months after the award of the main licence to Camelot. I do not think that anyone has suggested otherwise—certainly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepted that there was no question of the regulator having sought or received personal gain from the visits that he undertook. It is important that that fact should at least be placed on the record.
In the remaining minutes I shall comment on as many issues as possible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham made a number of points about local authority spending on what they regard as political campaigning in respect of grant-maintained school ballots. Regulations limit local education authority expenditure on influencing the outcome of ballots. I acknowledge that my right hon. and hon. Friends do not regard those limits as adequate. Shortly after Christmas we expect a further education Bill on grant-maintained schools and my right hon. and hon. Friends may wish to pursue aspects of the argument in that context.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and I had some exchanges about cold-weather payments during, I think, business questions last week and I do not think that I can add to what I said then. I also had some exchanges in the House about knives—I cannot add to what I said then. I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's support for the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and that attention is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's other suggestions.
As usual, I have improved the range of my knowledge during our debate; I am unbelievably well informed about the Isle of Wight. I know the location of every lightship, buoy, sewer outfall, school and hospital and the size of


the grant to the local citizens advice bureau—I shall be unable to cover all those issues. I now know much more about light dues around the British coast: apparently, they are administered by three general lighthouse authorities, including one called the commissioner of Irish lights, which no doubt operates as close to Belfast as anyone can. Fascinated though I am by the subject, I had better not engage in it any further today.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) made a number of points about St. George's hospital —which I believe I visited when I was Minister for Health—and London health services in general. Clearly, I do not have time to rehearse that debate now. As a Member of Parliament who represents part of Essex, I know that the home counties, including Essex, have long felt that the sharing of resources between London and the home counties was not fair. I believe that the Government have been right to tackle that problem and to recognise the need to shift the resources to where the population has moved historically—to the counties around London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), not for the first time in an Adjournment debate, made a number of references to Essex. I recognise his concerns about care in the community, and I am glad that, following the representations that a number of us made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, he has asked the social security inspectorate to consider the provision of community care in Essex.
I have made at least as many comments as I could have been expected to make in such a short time. I think I have done rather well. Even though nobody wished me a happy Christmas, I wish everyone a happy Christmas.

International Station (Stratford)

Mr. Stephen Timms: Our most recent full debate on this topic was on the day before the Christmas recess in 1994, although it was at a somewhat less congenial hour—about 4.30 am. This shorter debate today gives us an opportunity to review the progress since then.
The then Secretary of State for Transport announced in 1991 that the channel tunnel rail link would run through east London, because it would bring regeneration to east London. If there were to be no station in east London, however, there would be no regeneration, either. In good faith, the Government should honour the commitment they made in choosing the route for the channel tunnel rail link.
The transport case for the Stratford station is a compelling one. Stratford is a better station location for users of the rail link based in east and much of south London. Given the Jubilee line extension, Stratford is better for users from Westminster, and for users from the City, Essex and East Anglia. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) in his place this morning, and that hon. Members from Essex and East Anglia have signed early-day motion 126.
The Thames Gateway Partnership was launched in the City at the European bank for reconstruction and development on 1 December. The event was extremely well attended, and it was distinguished by the strong support voiced for an international station at Stratford in the speeches of both the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, and Mr. Neil Kinnock, the European Transport Commissioner.
I wish to highlight the developments since the previous debate, because they have powerfully advanced the case for Stratford. I shall concentrate on just two: first, the July report of the Select Committee on Transport; secondly, the publication of the London Pride Partnership's transport action programme.
The Select Committee, after its exhaustive deliberations, gave a ringing endorsement to the Stratford proposal. It identified the national and regional importance of the Stratford proposal and urged that the necessary powers for the station under the transport and works legislation should be obtained as soon as possible. That was a welcome and important decision, which recognised the case for Stratford at national level, which we had not previously achieved. We debated that report last summer.
The second development I wish to highlight is the launch of the London Pride programme last month. That was significant, because of the breadth of support it has achieved from local government and the business sector in London. The transport action programme that London Pride has produced represents a remarkable consensus among all those concerned about the future of London.
In the foreword to the programme, signed by Lord Sheppard and Toby Harris, the leader of Haringey council and chairman of the Association of London Authorities, one of the main priorities of the programme of action is
the award of the concession for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link with an international station at Stratford".


All the London boroughs, London First, the Confederation of British Industry and the London chamber of commerce have recognised the Stratford station decision as one of the keys to the future of transport in London. As the Stratford promoter group has shown, the proposal can be achieved at no cost to Government.
One of the benefits of the Stratford station proposal is the excellent onward connections that Stratford can offer to the north. The Minister may be aware that the proposal, in its initial form, for additional tunnelling at Islington—which I support—could jeopardise some of those connections. Newham council, of which I am still a member, is working with the London borough of Islington on a proposal that would give the extra protection in Islington that the Select Committee advocated, without jeopardising Stratford's link to the west coast main line.
When we debated this topic at 4.30 am a year ago, the Minister intimated that a final decision would be announced in spring 1995. We have not yet had that decision, and I understand that there will be a decision in January. I appeal to the Minister to make a real and substantial decision. Some people are saying that the Government will duck the issue, by leaving it to somebody else to make the decision. It is a priority for the capital, as London Pride has demonstrated, and it is important to the national interest, as the Select Committee has shown.
This matter cannot be left to the vagaries of purely commercial decision-making. The Government need to make this decision; they have always suggested that they will; and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm today that that remains their intention. The Government should now resolve swiftly, clearly and unequivocally in favour of Stratford International.

Mr. David Amess: Unfortunately, I am advised that the procedures of the House mean that, as I have already spoken this morning, I cannot make a separate speech. However, I can intervene.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) understands my personal commitment to Newham. As the House has become tired of hearing, it is the place where I was born, and I still have family there. The case for having the international railway station at Stratford is very strong. There is enormous support from Conservative Members of Parliament in Essex and in East Anglia for having the international railway station at Stratford.
From my point of view, on the Conservative Benches, I am very proud that the Conservative Government built the channel tunnel, and I am very proud of what they did in the London docklands. I believe fundamentally that the case for the international railway station being at Stratford will enhance the success of the docklands. There will be an enormous benefit for constituents in Essex and East Anglia if we have the railway station at Stratford.
Does the hon. Member join me in hoping that my hon. Friend the Minister will give the House a Christmas present by announcing in the new year that the railway station will be at Stratford?

Mr. Timms: I gladly endorse many of the points that the hon. Member has made, especially the last one about the aspiration for a Christmas present from the Minister. I gladly acknowledge and put on the record the long-standing and unwavering support that the hon.

Member has given to the interests of Newham and to the case for the international station at Stratford. I agree with his assessment of the importance of this proposal, not just for east London, but for Essex and East Anglia. I have already said that I especially appreciate the support that many Conservative Members have given to the proposals by signing the early-day motion.
The channel tunnel was built by a private sector organisation rather than by the Government, but I agree with the hon. Member for Basildon that it is an important element of our infrastructure. We need to ensure that it brings benefit not just to London, but to Essex and East Anglia. An international station at Stratford would help to make that possible.

Mr. Tony Banks: Stratford is in my constituency, but I am in favour of the proposed international station not because of a narrow constituency interest, but because, as my hon. Friend has rightly said, the project involves all London. I am glad that the three Members who represent Newham, together with supporters on the Government Benches, have worked together on the campaign for Stratford international station.
Does my hon. Friend agree that that campaign is an example of the public and private sectors working together? Organisations across London of all political persuasions have said that the station should be located at Stratford, as have Conservative Members. Is that not a perfect example of a co-operative venture? Does my hon. Friend agree that that should impress the Government? Given the enormous support across the House and across London and the south-east for the station to be located at Stratford, we cannot understand why it has taken the Government so long to make a decision.

Mr. Timms: I agree. I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend is with us this morning, and I know that to some extent we owe that to the immigration authorities at Zurich.
A year ago, the Minister acknowledged the impressive nature of the public-private sector partnership which supports the Stratford proposal. I agree with my hon. Friend: I hope that the Minister and the Government will swiftly make the decision for which so many of us have been pressing for such a long time.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am glad to join my hon. Friends from Newham, and the support from Basildon of all places, in praising a multi-party, multi-beneficial investment in public transport. I say "public transport" even though there may be a slightly different emphasis on the manner in which it is funded. That is now less important than the principle.
I am also glad to support the Stratford proposal because I can support, surprisingly enough, two aspects of Government policy that are intimately connected with it. That may sound strange, but it is absolutely true.
The first policy with which I agree is the provision of the station works at Stratford without cost to the public purse. That will not come under the various formulae that we have talked about or the private finance initiative, but it will be funded by the Stratford Development Partnership and those in the area who are willing to provide the capital for the station inside the concrete box


that is part of the works that have been agreed. That is wholly in line with the Government's policy of private enterprise, and development from private means. On this occasion at least, the Opposition have no objection to that.
The second aspect of Government policy with which I agree is something that I heard the Secretary of State for Transport, no less, express only this morning on "Today"—a programme which often reflects, or perhaps leads, rightly or wrongly, what happens in the Chamber. He said that the Government want more and more people to travel by rail. That is good news, particularly when congestion is caused by cars and other traffic in Greater London. A station at Stratford would contribute not just to international facilities but to traffic flow in Greater London. We all know that people choose to travel by the underground not just because of the time saved, but because of the convenience of it.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Stratford location is truly extraordinary. Whether trains from the channel tunnel rail link will eventually stop there or not, the existing rail network from Stratford is considerable. Fortunately, I have time to spell out the links from Stratford to other parts of Greater London. One can travel around the North London link to Richmond, Cambridge and beyond, to Stansted airport.
Stratford is linked to two branches of the Central line, one to Epping and one to Hainault. It is linked to two, possibly three branches of the Great Eastern line to Southend, Clacton, Chelmsford and Norwich. It is also possible to take a night service from Stratford to Barking and Southend, and indeed to Basildon by another route.
In future, there may be a permanent service operating every half an hour from Stratford to the royal docks, and beyond, under the Thames, to Woolwich and north Kent, should the proposed link be built. At the moment, it is perfectly possible to travel to north Woolwich and the important development and exhibition centres and the university college of East London at the royal docks.
Stratford will also be connected to the Jubilee line, on which it will be possible to travel to London Bridge, Waterloo, Westminster, central London and beyond. Stratford is also on the docklands light railway, which connects to Canary Wharf, which is an important development, whatever one may think of it. It may well be possible, should that line be extended, to travel on to Lewisham.
Stratford is also on the Central line, and is thus linked to central London through the Oxford street access. In addition, if crossrail is built, that would add a through line to Paddington, London airport, Reading and perhaps as far south as Bristol or Exeter. Such is the network to which Stratford has, or is soon likely to have, access.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I do not want to pour cold water on the comments of the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who have said that passengers from south London and Kent would be able to use Stratford station, but may I remind them that Ebbsfleet international station has already been approved for the route? Due to the excellence of the South Eastern Railway Company, it will be able to cater precisely for those people from south London and Kent. That does not detract, however, from the advantages of Stratford to Essex and north London.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member speaks for north Kent, and Ebbsfleet will be a valuable link on the network. We all know that there are breakdowns on every line for good or bad reasons. If trains have to stop at Ebbsfleet, it may be possible to change to alternative routes. It is to those alternatives that I wish to refer.
The channel tunnel rail link should go to King's Cross and St. Pancras by some means or another. Many visitors to London get taxis from King's Cross or St. Pancras to their hotels or an exhibition centre, so they are the preferable stations to which the rail link should go. A station at Stratford would also offer additional access to the channel tunnel rail link to many people in Greater London through designated trains or routes, and could provide luggage facilities for passengers. If things go wrong—they go wrong in the best regulated circumstances—trains have to be reversed from a station further out—for example, Reading. A station at Stratford would offer an additional facility to cope with such problems.
I believe that the choice of Stratford would add to the returns of traffic on the route. We know that the rail link has been subject to financial difficulties, so I suggest to the Minister that everything points to supporting the works order, and thus creating a station at Stratford.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House again. As he reminded us, we last debated it a year ago, at a less sociable hour. I know that he and many other hon. Members have campaigned long and vigorously for an intermediate station at Stratford. I understand their concern and impatience that a decision should be made without further delay. I therefore welcome the opportunity to inform the House of the current position on the proposal.
On the occasion of our previous debate, I explained the process by which the Government had reached decisions to date about intermediate stations on the rail link. I described the position as it then stood, and how we saw things moving forward to a final decision. I also acknowledged that an international station would assist the regeneration of the Stratford area. I also drew attention, however, to the need to be sure that there was a good economic case for it.
At that time, we were hopeful that we would be able to reach a decision in the early part of this year. In the event, the nature and complexity of the bids received from the consortia bidding to construct and operate the rail link, and their proposals for a possible Stratford station, meant that that decision has had to be delayed. I do not apologise for that, because the Government have to be sure that they make the right decision on the basis of all the necessary information. The important thing is that no time has been wasted in the process of reaching a decision.
The Government and the two short-listed consortia have had the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the various recommendations of the Select Committee on Transport, which considered the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister said that the Government must ensure that they make the right


decision. When reaching a decision about Stratford, will the Minister take into account strategic reasons, or will he look only at the commercial case put by the developers? He said that the Government must make the right decision. What factors will influence the Government?

Mr. Watts: I shall come to that issue in a moment. The Government will be influenced by a broad range of factors, including some of those to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded.
The Stratford promoter group has continued to lobby very hard, and there have been a number of meetings with Ministers. I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that it is an excellent example of public sector and private sector co-operation, the like of which we are seeing increasingly in London and around the country.
The group made presentations both to the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), and to me in February. I also had the pleasure of accepting an invitation to visit Stratford in March on a very wet day, and I was impressed by the strength of support from the local community. More recently, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), has also met representatives of the group.
The group has argued that patronage of, and therefore revenue from, the CTRL would be increased, that the station could be built at no cost to the Government, and that there would be substantial regeneration benefits. It has argued strongly that the total realised from the sale of development lands in the area would exceed the cost of providing the station, and that the site offers the prospect of a major new public transport interchange of national and international significance. It is accepted that Stratford is now an extremely important public transport interchange, and I can see advantages in expanding that role. I know, too, that a great deal of work has been done in estimating land values and on associated planning issues.
The promoter group's funding proposals rely heavily on income to be derived from the sale of development lands—the Stratford railway lands. The Government have always reserved the right to consider other funding approaches and have invited the CTRL bidders to put forward alternative funding proposals if they so wish.
However, in order to ensure that the approach of the station promoter group remains viable, the Government undertook to ensure that the Stratford railway lands should remain available pending a decision on the future of the station. Concern has been expressed from time to time as to whether that is still the case, and I am happy to confirm the assurances that I and other Ministers have given, that there will be no piecemeal disposals and that the Stratford railway lands will remain fully available until a decision on the station is made.

Mr. Timms: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. In raising again the decision about Stratford, do the Government intend to decide for or against the Stratford station, or will they allow someone else to make the decision? I urge the Minister to assure the House that the Government will make that decision.

Mr. Watts: I shall come to that issue. We might make a decision in favour of the station, but we shall not make a decision against it. I will explain that comment later. I assure hon. Members that we shall certainly not duck a decision.
The Government will decide shortly whether a Stratford station should be provided now, and, if so, whether it should be a combined international and domestic station or an international station only. The possibility of having a station at some point in the future has already been secured as a result of the Government's acceptance this summer of the recommendations from the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
The promoter will now be required to construct a long box at Stratford rather than the shorter version envisaged originally, which would have met only the operational requirements of the railway. The long box will be large enough to house the platforms and the other passenger facilities that are needed for a combined international and domestic station. Even if the decision is taken next year not to provide a station immediately, the possibility of adding one at a later stage will remain.
The decision will be either "yes" or "possibly in the future". It will not be "no", because the possibility of a station has been secured by the requirement to build the long box as part of the main construction of the link.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: At the beginning of the CTRL affair, British Rail espoused the wonderful theory that the economics of building a railway meant that, the fewer stops there were, the more money would be made. I am relieved to discover that Ministers have taken a rather different view. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is easier for passengers to get on and off the train when it stops?

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Too many stops may reduce the frequency of services and may diminish revenue, but if the argument that it is better for trains not to stop is pursued to its logical conclusion, it means running trains that stop only at each end of the line—which would probably not maximise revenue.
The Government will decide whether to proceed immediately and, if so, how that would be financed. However, the views of the two short-listed bidders on the costs and benefits of such a station, and particularly the effect that it would have in terms of increasing or reducing the contribution sought from Government for the project, are key factors in that decision.
The bidders have been instructed to treat the long box as a minimum requirement, to price for a fully combined international and domestic station, and then to say how their bids would be adjusted for an international station only or no station at all. In that way, we shall receive the full range of available financial information.

Mr. Spearing: With regard to the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), does the Minister agree that the existence of some clause of which people are unaware, that traffic and fares are directly related to some formula involving distance and journey time, would be incompatible with the commonly held view? Stopping at a station may add only five minutes to the journey time but prove of inestimable benefit to many people, and thus increase traffic and revenue at the same time.

Mr. Watts: An extra stop might reduce the total number of trains that could be run. Against that, we must balance the extent to which the provision of an extra stop might generate additional passengers and revenue. Those are the sort of judgments that we must take on the basis of the best evidence available. The bidding consortia are


also considering those matters when submitting their bids to us and indicating whether a scheme with a Stratford station is a better business proposition than a scheme without it.
If a decision is made in favour of a station, it will be promoted by an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992, which will provide the mechanism for the necessary planning consents. The process of securing such an order could begin next year, and, subject to securing the necessary approvals, should be capable of being completed and the station constructed within the same time scale as the completion of construction of the rail link.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that the final decision will be based on all strategic considerations, including the recognition by his predecessors, such as the present Deputy Prime Minister, that it is not simply a transport project but a vital contribution to the economic infrastructure of the area? Will he assure us that that strategic decision will be taken by the Government, and not by any consortium for commercial reasons?

Mr. Watts: I have already said that the Government will make the decision, and that we shall take into account a wide range of factors, including the strategic considerations to which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West have referred.
Apart from the CTRL effects and other transport benefits, another key factor in the decision-making process will be the regeneration benefits to be derived from an international station. The hon. Members for Newham, North-West, for Newham, North-East and for

Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have been persuasive advocates of the contribution that a station would make to the regeneration of the Stratford area. We had substantial correspondence on that point following last year's debate.
I do not accept that east London would derive no economic benefits if there were no station development at Stratford. There is already substantial investment in transport, infrastructure and so on in east London. None the less, I accept—as I did when replying to the debates last year and in March—that a CTRL station at Stratford would prove a significant additional boost to those initiatives, and to the development of the Thames gateway as a whole.
In evaluating bids, the Government will carefully consider the assumptions about the viability of the station, the scope and nature of regeneration benefits, and the possible impact on the CTRL generally of a Stratford station. We shall also take into account other possible developments in transport infrastructure, such as the opening of the Jubilee line extension in 1998, and how traffic patterns and levels of use on existing and proposed transport links might respond to the opening of an international station.
In reaching their views on the costs and benefits of the various options, the two bidders have had the opportunity of extensive discussions with the Stratford promoter group. By deferring a decision until the final bids from the two short-listed consortia have been received, we have sought to give the promoter group and the bidders the maximum opportunity to make their best case for a station.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lefthouse): Order. Time is up.

Schools (Broadstairs)

1 pm

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am most grateful to have been given the opportunity to raise in an Adjournment debate the subject of schools in Broadstairs.
I shall devote most of my speech to the individual and separate problems of three schools in Broadstairs that have become most inappropriately entangled in a complex dispute and need some help—perhaps even a touch of the wisdom of Solomon—from my hon. Friend the Minister if the dispute is to be sorted out swiftly and satisfactorily to the benefit of several hundred local schoolchildren, their anxious families and their worried teachers.
Before I focus on the dispute and make some suggestions for solving it, I shall make some general comments on the wider subject of school education in Broadstairs because it is, on the whole, a sparkling success story in which our local community rightly takes great pride.
Broadstairs is a charming town on the Kent coast with a residential population of approximately 25,000 and a flourishing education sector consisting of 12 schools. They include at secondary level Holy Cross school and St. George's grant-maintained school, whose GCSE examination results last year were top of the league tables for non-selective schools in Kent and second top in the league table for modern schools in the entire country. Charles Dickens grant-maintained school has a new science block under construction and scored a commendable 89 per cent. pass rate among its GCSE candidates taking five or more subjects. Dane Court grant-maintained school had its best ever year for examination results last year, with a 95 per cent. pass rate among GCSE candidates taking five or more subjects.
At junior level, Broadstairs has three good schools: Upton, Bromstone and St. Peter's, to which I shall refer in a moment. There are also two infant schools: St. Mildred's and Callis Grange, which also features in the dispute that is central to the debate.
I should also mention that the independent sector flourishes in Broadstairs with Haddon Dene school, St. Joseph's convent school and Wellesley House school—the latter being one of the outstanding preparatory schools in the country. Perhaps I should declare an interest as I say those words of praise about Wellesley House, as our own three children have had remarkably happy and successful educations there.
What all those schools in Broadstairs have in common are high standards, dedicated teachers and a keen sense of mutual interest and interaction with the local community. When something goes right, such as the good examination results that I have just mentioned, the whole community sits up and takes notice.
The same is also true, however, if something goes wrong. That is why I now refer to a subject that is in danger of going wrong on the Broadstairs education scene—the dispute affecting three schools—and that is the main focus of the debate.
At the heart of the dispute is a question mark hanging over the future of one of the oldest and most respected schools in Broadstairs. That is St. Peter's school, or to give it its formal title, St. Peter's in Thanet Church of England aided junior school. Unfortunately, St. Peter's

also has the less happy distinction of having some of the worst premises in the entire county in the shape of its 19th-century physical facilities.
St. Peter's has the fundamental disadvantage of being a split-site school, with its two main buildings separated by a high street. The busy traffic creates daily physical risks for the pupils. The buildings deserve the overworked adjective "Dickensian", for they are overcrowded, unhealthy, damp and dangerous.
To give the House a vivid picture of St. Peter's in the winter rain, I can do no better than quote a report written last autumn by the school's then chairman of governors, Mr. Norman Morland:
As chairman of governors I visited the school on Wednesday 13 October, following several days of heavy autumnal rain. For the sake of the morale of all concerned, I went over to the high street building and can only say that I was appalled by what I saw. The atmosphere was akin to that of a hot house in Kew. Buckets and bowls were everywhere to catch the rain. Water was trickling down one of the walls, the pages of the books were curling up in the moisture-laden air, there was fungus on the cupboard walls. The catalogue could continue on and on.
In the midst of all this the staff and the pupils worked heroically and deserve the highest commendation for continuing in conditions that are totally unacceptable and are deleterious to health of pupil and teacher.
So much for the bad news, which was well recorded in Mr. Morland's vivid prose and confirmed by a recent report by the Office of Standards in Education inspectorate. However, that bad news is on the verge of being consigned to the archives of history because the good news is that the local education authority, Kent county council and the Canterbury diocesan board of education, after many long and disappointing delays, have put forward an excellent proposal for a new St. Peter's school building.
That building project, which received no objections during the consultation period and was overwhelmingly well supported by the local community, is for a new, enlarged third-form entry junior school for 360 pupils. The new St. Peter's school would consist of 12 classrooms to be built around a central courtyard on land already owned by the local education authority adjacent to Callis Grange infant school. The funding for the project—some £1.6 million—is now in place, so until the recent unexpected dispute erupted, the new St. Peter's school was ready to roll, confidently on schedule to open its doors in September 1997.
I should emphasise that the new St. Peter's school building is being developed alongside another important school building development on the same site—that of Callis Grange county infant school. Callis Grange school, which currently has 356 pupils on its roll, suffers from an overcrowding problem, which has been temporarily alleviated by the use of five mobile classrooms and a mobile toilet block.
The facilities are woefully inadequate, particularly in the freezing, wind-chill weather conditions that prevailed last week. The LEA recognised the problem, which is exacerbated by the growing demand for school places in Broadstairs, and gave its full backing to a building project that would enlarge the school by 90 extra places. That means building new classroom accommodation to cope with the expected increase in the school roll and to replace some of the mobiles. The enlargement of Callis Grange school is scheduled to take place in time for the new


classrooms to be opened in September 1997. As the project is being built on the same site and time scale as the new St. Peter's school, the two developments need to proceed simultaneously.
Against that background, I hope that it is clear to my hon. Friend that the substantial combined building project of a new school for St. Peter's and enlarged classrooms for Callis Grange is important and urgent in terms of the physical facilities and the basic need for more school places in Broadstairs.
Broadstairs is sometimes thought of as a town for retired people, but the community is becoming demographically more well balanced and has an increasing number of young families moving into the area. There was consternation among those young families, whose children require adequate provision for primary and infant school places, when the news broke recently that the St. Peter's and Callis Grange building projects had been halted in their tracks because of a totally unexpected and unpredictable obstacle in the form of eight letters of statutory objection signed by 10 Broadstairs residents. They were all dated 9 November. The letters were received by my hon. Friend's Department just two days before the period for objections to the public notices expired on 12 November. Those objections have the explosive potential to block or seriously delay the St. Peter's and Callis Grange school building developments unless they are withdrawn or my hon. Friend uses her statutory ministerial powers swiftly to overrule them.
I said a few moments ago that the unexpected arrival of those last-minute objections caused consternation in Broadstairs, but in some ways the word "consternation" is an understatement. For I am sorry to have to report that there was also a degree of anger and astonishment when it became apparent that the letters of objection were identical in text and had apparently been organised by the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Southwark's commission for schools in Kent, in order to draw attention to the plight of St. Joseph's convent school in Broadstairs, which faced the possibility of closure.
Needless to say, there are two sides to this story and I shall endeavour to explain sympathetically and constructively the anxieties of the archdiocese of Southwark about St. Joseph's in a moment. Nevertheless the manner and format in which those essentially bogus, although paradoxically sincere, objections were lodged raised the bizarre spectacle of a sectarian divide in Broadstairs, in which Roman Catholics were suspected of blocking the urgently needed building of a Church of England school.
I hasten to assure the House that those fears are not justified. Broadstairs has not suddenly become Belfast. The religious communities in the town remain on good terms, not least because local Catholic leaders such as Father Ronald Duggan, the parish priest of Broadstairs, and Canon Bill Clements, the dean of Thanet, have made it clear that the local Roman Catholic community has no objections to the St. Peter's school building project.
Meanwhile the Church of England vicar of St. Peter's, Canon Nick Bury, who is also chairman of the governors of St. Peter's school, has made it clear that there is nothing but Anglican good will towards St. Joseph's

convent school, whose future aspirations should not affect the St. Peter's building project at all and should be seen as a quite separate issue, important though it is to the Catholic community of Broadstairs.
Let me therefore now refer to the separate issue of the future of St. Joseph's convent school. That excellent independent private school, which has approximately 100 Catholic pupils of primary school age, has for many years been run and subsidised by the sisters of the Christian retreat in Broadstairs. Sadly, the sisters, whose numbers and resources are declining, have decided that they can no longer continue to subsidise the operation of the school after 1997.
The archdiocese of Southwark, after taking local soundings in Broadstairs, came to the conclusion that, rather than see a much loved Catholic school close, it would make greater sense to try to continue the excellent traditions of St. Joseph's by seeing whether it could be taken into the maintained sector as a primary school. Confidential discussions between the LEA and the archdiocese for that purpose therefore started earlier this year.
I think it fair to say that there must have been some misunderstandings in those discussions, since for some reason or other the archdiocese came to believe that the only way to protect the future interest of St. Joseph's was to lodge objections to the St. Peter's and Callis Grange building project at the last minute in order to draw the attention of the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister to the full background of primary school options in Broadstairs. I hope that I have now explained enough about the background to primary school education in Broadstairs to demonstrate that there is a basic need for, and room for, a new and enlarged St. Peter's Church of England primary school and a St. Joseph's Roman Catholic primary school, transferred from the independent sector to the maintained sector as a voluntary-aided Roman Catholic school.
Since I started balloting for this Adjournment debate, further talks have been held between the LEA and the archdiocese of Southwark. A few days ago the Kent education committee, with much input and encouragement from Councillor Fred Shutler, the energetic county councillor for Broadstairs, decided to support the proposal to establish a new voluntary-aided Roman Catholic primary school in Broadstairs in September 1997, on the basis that the LEA will be submitting a bid for 90 additional primary school places for Thanet in 1997. Those additional places, taken together with the existing roll of St. Joseph's, will provide ample justification for the proposed new one-form entry primary school.
Against that background, and even though there is no real linkage between the St. Joseph's and the St. Peter's projects, it does seem that this should be a story that will have a happy outcome early in 1996, bringing to an end the current tense dispute affecting the three schools that I have been talking about.
So in order that those three schools can live happily ever after, I now ask my hon. Friend to respond, I hope affirmatively, to the key questions that need to be answered. So far as St. Joseph's is concerned, can my hon. Friend confirm that her Department has received, or expects to receive, a bid from Kent local education authority for additional primary school places for Thanet in 1997? Will she look favourably on the proposal, which


I know her officials are aware of, for a new St. Joseph's voluntary-aided Roman Catholic primary school, to open in September 1997?
So far as St. Peter's school and Callis Grange school are concerned, can my hon. Friend the Minister announce that she is now minded—or soon will be minded—to approve the LEA's and the Canterbury diocesan board's proposals for the combined building projects to go ahead as planned and in good time for the new St. Peter's school and the new Callis Grange classrooms to open their doors in September 1997?
If my hon. Friend is minded, in this season of peace and good will, to indicate her approval for all those projects this afternoon, I can assure her that she will be giving the education world in Broadstairs the best possible Christmas present.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) on securing this important Adjournment debate on the schools in his constituency. He is well known as a champion of the excellent education in South Thanet, and his diligence in requesting this debate is a testament to his attitude to his constituency and its schools.
I want to begin by discussing some general issues that my right hon. Friend raised, not least the sparkling success of the schools in his constituency. I am delighted to hear about the high standards being achieved in Broadstairs schools, which clearly owe much to the excellent quality of the teaching. Once again, we must applaud the enthusiasm and dedication of the teaching profession, which has so rightly been described as a vocation.
School improvement is always at the top of the Government's agenda. It is also encouraging to note that this year's GCSE results for Broadstairs continue to be good. I am aware that three of the four secondary schools are grant-maintained, and their success is a testament to the GM policy.
We firmly believe that self-government is the best way of running schools. It sets schools free to decide for themselves how they use their resources and to target them where they will have most effect. It means that they can keep and develop their distinctive characters to meet the needs of the communities that they serve. Self-government releases the energies of teachers and governors by giving them responsibility for their schools' futures, and they certainly rise to that challenge. GM schools are well managed, achieve excellent results as they have done in Broadstairs, and are clearly popular with parents. They can get things done quickly, without waiting for town hall bureaucracy to get things moving, and they are directly accountable to local parents.
In Kent, more than half the secondary pupils are now being educated in GM schools. Parents have voted yes in ballots on going GM, so it is pretty clear that Kent parents support self-government of schools. It is a pity that we do not often see a positive approach on the part of Kent county council. It has been quite hostile to grant-maintained status, and it makes life as difficult as possible once schools have decided to ballot.
The development of GM schools is only one aspect of the Government's mission to promote excellence in education. We are also funding initiatives to encourage the

development of specialist schools, which bring together three important strands of our education and employment policies: raising standards, extending choice and diversity, and linking schools and the business community. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the popularity of our specialist schools programme; indeed Sandwich high school, in South Thanet, has recently been designated a technology college. That programme proves that education and business want to work together. Each technology or language college is backed by sponsorship of about £100,000; private sector sponsorship for school education totals more than £14 million as a result of the programme.
The specialist schools programme is outstandingly popular. It was launched only in September 1993, but there are now more than 140 schools in it. There are 127 technology colleges as well as the first 16 language colleges. As there is stiff competition for places in the programme, all the schools approved can be proud of their success.
I have more good news about Kent to add to that presented by my right hon. Friend. We have been able to confirm our support for capital spending on schools. The figures for Kent are not available, but we have national figures, as I announced yesterday. Despite the tight public spending round, we have been able to secure capital spending for 1996–97 in local education authority maintained schools at a level that is 7 per cent. higher than the current year. That demonstrates the Government's commitment to helping LEAs improve the quality of their school buildings.
It is for LEAs, however, to decide their own capital expenditure priorities and to make the best use of the resources that are available to them. The annual capital guidelines, the ACGs, that have been announced are not tied to particular projects. Nor do they represent the total of resources available to LEAs for capital spending. The authorities are able also to invest their capital receipts. They can use funds from their revenue budgets for capital purposes if they wish. The Government do not control the funding of individual projects at county or voluntary-controlled schools.
The Kent local education authority was given an ACG of £23,223,000 in 1996–97. That was by far the largest in the country. That sum represents 40 per cent. of its total bid. It is significantly above the national average of 23 per cent. The ACG largely reflects the extent to which the authority's plans for spending on schools matched the national priority criteria.
Allocations for voluntary-aided schools' capital works have increased by 7 per cent. to £62 million in 1996–97. There has been set aside £38 million for repair grants in line with 1995–96.
Allocations for basic need and exceptional basic need will be much higher in 1996–97 than in recent years. They will be about £6.6 million compared with £2.5 million in 1995–96. The allocations for grant-maintained schools continue to show a healthy increase as well, from £130 million in the current year to £138 million in 1996–97. Those figures demonstrate the Government's commitment to improving standards in education. The examples given by my right hon. Friend provide encouraging evidence of the success of our policies in practice.
My right hon. Friend drew the attention of the House to Callis Grange and St. Peter's schools in Thanet. Both schools are in Broadstairs. I am sure that my right hon.


Friend will appreciate that as an enlarged county infant school and a new Church of England junior in Broadstairs will be considered in the context of statutory proposals, those matters are currently under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Therefore, I cannot comment in detail on the issues that he raised. I am well aware, however, of the problems surrounding the provision of primary school places in Broadstairs.
My officials visited St. Peter's junior school earlier this year. They were able to advise the governors and Kent LEA on how to proceed. My right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot prejudge the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I can assure my right hon. Friend, however, that I have listened carefully to what he said about the condition of the buildings used by pupils at Callis Grange and St. Peter's. I can give him my assurance that his description and the details that he has given will be taken into account.

Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the constructive and helpful tone in which she is replying. I understand that, for statutory reasons, she cannot prejudge the ruling of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. But what is the timetable within which my right hon. Friend will make a decision'? If it is a favourable one, will it be made in good time to allow the building works to start within a period that will enable them to be completed so that the schools may open their doors in September 1997?

Mrs. Gillan: I understand my right hon. Friend's determination to try to extract from me a timetable, but I am unable to give him one today. I undertake to write to him in the new year. I shall try to give him an idea of the timetable for my right hon. Friend's decisions.
As for St. Joseph's school, I should explain that we have not yet received any statutory proposals to establish a new voluntary-aided Roman Catholic primary school in Broadstairs. That remains an outstanding matter. If and when we do receive such proposals, we shall consider them fully and carefully, and as speedily as possible.
On a more positive note, I can confirm that we have accepted in principle the basic need case for additional primary school places in Broadstairs. For reasons that I think I have explained fully, I cannot comment on whether those places will be provided at St. Peter's and St. Joseph's, bearing in mind the need for the statutory process. I cannot go beyond saying that, if the proposals are approved, funding will, of course, follow.
I am sorry that I am unable to deliver all the Christmas presents on my right hon. Friend's list. I trust that he will accept my reply as just a little stocking filler.

Knockhill Motor Sport Centre

Ms Rachel Squire: I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the future of motor sport facilities in Scotland. I shall use the debate to highlight the success of Scotland's national motor sport centre at Knockhill in my constituency and express the grave concerns that I and many others have that a proposed alternative facility at Forrestburn in Lanarkshire could lead to no winners, only losers, and a waste of public money.
If the Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members want an exciting day out, I recommend that they head for Knockhill rather than remain at Westminster. Knockhill is recognised by the Scottish Sports Council and the Scottish Motor Sport Federation as Scotland's national motor sport centre. The track deals with a wide range of car and motor cycle racing. It was declared the circuit of the year by the Touring Car Association. If the Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members want to visit a successful private enterprise, I recommend Knockhill.
The track was rescued from receivership some years ago by the director, Derek Butcher, who has put more than £3 million of his own money into the venture. Knockhill has not received any public funding for capital expenditure yet it employs 16 full-time permanent staff directors. The track supports three franchise businesses on site with a further 10 permanent staff. It takes on up to an additional 100 part-time staff when there is a big event. It thus makes a considerable contribution to the local economy. In addition, when there is a big event such as the British championship for touring cars, hotels in the Fife area are fully booked. The circuit manager, Eric Houston, said:
We put more people into hotels than Open Golf does",
and that is once a year, not once every four years.
Knockhill's success, however, is threatened by the proposed development at Forrestburn. I can understand the Minister saying that that is a shame but asking why it should concern the Government. Let me explain.
The Minister is aware that, because of their industrial decline, parts of Fife and parts of Lanarkshire are eligible for support from European structural funds. That means that decisions on proposed programmes for areas that seek European funding are taken by committees. The principal committees involved in taking decisions on individual projects such as that at Forrestburn are, I understand, the programme management committees for eastern and western Scotland. They are chaired by the Scottish Office development department, acting on behalf of the Government as the official implementing authority for European Union funding programmes.
The first reason, therefore, why the Government should be concerned about the future of Knockhill and the proposed development at Forrestburn is that the Scottish Office retains responsibility for the payment of European grant money and is ultimately responsible for the audit requirements. My understanding is that Forrestburn has been allocated £1.4 million in European grant money, so the Government have a direct interest.
The second reason why the Government should be concerned about the Forrestburn development is that there is strong evidence that the use of European money to


support the project will, in effect, displace an existing facility—in other words, it will put Knockhill out of business. I understand that such a displacement contravenes the rules for European funding.
The Treasury defines displacement as occurring when support for one project has the effect of reducing economic activity in other parts of the economy. I understand that a displacement analysis has been undertaken, but considerable concern has been expressed by many organisations that do not believe that it went into sufficient depth to enable it to be established that the only way in which Forrestburn could be successful was by taking much of Knockhill's business.
It appears that key interests such as the Scottish Sports Council, Fife Enterprise, Fife regional council and Dunfermline district council were not fully consulted about their views on displacement. Scottish Enterprise told me in a letter dated 27 October this year that
the developers of Forrestburn have not adequately addressed the question of displacement … if the Forrestburn project proceeds it may very well put Knockhill out of business.
In the past few days, Scottish Enterprise has changed its tune—one can only speculate why that is—but I hope that the Minister will want to satisfy himself about the adequacy of the displacement analysis that has apparently been conducted.
People with expertise and interest in motor sport facilities in Scotland believe that Forrestburn will be viable only if it takes business from Knockhill.

Sir Hector Monro: Although I do not know a great deal about Forrestburn, I agree wholeheartedly that Knockhill has been a huge success in hosting not only the touring car championship but motor cycle racing and weekly club events, which are so popular in Scotland. Whatever my hon. Friend the Minister says in reply, I hope that he will in no way deprecate Knockhill's achievement. It has been an outstanding success in recent years.

Ms Squire: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for his support, which I know will be greatly appreciated by Knockhill. I have no doubt that Knockhill would look forward to a visit from him in the not too distant future.
Only a limited number of motor racing events attract sufficiently large crowds to make a business viable. I understand that at Knockhill only three events a year attract crowds of more than 5,000, and they are vital to Knockhill's commercial success. Forrestburn would have to compete with Knockhill and take those events from it if it was to be viable.
I believe that Forrestburn hopes to attract formula 1 racing, which Knockhill does not stage. I believe, however, that there is already fierce competition among existing tracks such as Brands Hatch for such events. Formula 1 racing is very costly, and the £6.5 million being talked about for the Forrestburn development would not support even the track safety and maintenance requirements of a formula 1 racing track for a single year.
A formula 1 track was opened in Japan this year. According to one set of figures, it cost £60 million to develop and will require £10 million every year just to maintain the facilities. Therefore, without a sufficient market in Scotland, public money could be wasted and a successful business badly, if not mortally, damaged.
Does the Minister believe that a detailed analysis was carried out by Lanarkshire development agency? Has a careful study been made of what events Forrestburn would host and the extent to which they would displace those that Knockhill has been successful in attracting? If a full consultation has not been carried out, will the Minister assure me that one will be undertaken; that it will involve experts in the industry, not only in Scotland but in the UK as a whole; and that it will be undertaken before any further attempt is made to decide whether there is sufficient business to support two racing tracks with such a short distance between them? The Minister's answers will be heard carefully not only by me and Knockhill but by the hotels and businesses in the Fife area, which gain so much from major motor sports events.
I have already touched on the third reason why Knockhill's future and the Forrestburn development should be of interest to the Minister. It is the apparent inadequacies in the decision-making arrangements that the proposals for Forrestburn have highlighted. I do not believe that key organisations such as Fife Enterprise and the Scottish Sports Council have been fully consulted. Not even the programme management committee for the east of Scotland was consulted. Although Forrestburn is a west of Scotland development, it will have a displacement effect on an existing east-of-Scotland facility. I understand that no direct approach to Knockhill has been made by the company involved in the Forrestburn development, Inreco, and that its only contact was three or four years ago—in a telephone discussion with KPMG Peat Marwick. Full consultation would have called into question the Forrestburn project's ability to satisfy the technical and financial eligibility appraisals and the core criteria, which include demonstrating clear evidence of demand.
I hope that the Minister will say that he believes that further investigation is necessary, and that a full and thorough displacement analysis will result, with all interested parties being fully consulted. If there is not the business to support two race tracks so close together, as I and others fear, we could end up with neither being commercially viable. Public money will have been used to build up false hopes in Lanarkshire, to ruin a successful private enterprise business in Fife and, I believe, to damage the sporting reputation of Scotland.
I hope that the Minister will bring some Christmas cheer to Knockhill and to all those who support it and are concerned with its future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) would like to contribute. Will the hon. Lady agree to that?

Ms Squire: I am most willing to allow the right hon. Gentleman to contribute.

Sir Hector Monro: I shall say a few words in support of the position of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on Knockhill.
I have been deeply involved in motor racing and motor sport in Scotland since the war, as the former president of the Auto-cycle Union. One has seen, sadly, the demise of Charterhall and Ingliston, and Crimond up in the north. The one circuit that has been a success is Knockhill. I note that the hon. Lady said that it went through a


difficult period, but in recent years it has come back very strongly indeed and is popular among competitors because in Scotland there is nowhere else to go. There are two or three major meetings that attract big crowds, particularly the touring car championship, which was an outstanding success not only at Knockhill but on television.
Many motor racing enthusiasts would have to travel far south, down to Croft or further into the midlands of England and to Oulton park if they wanted to take part in competitive motor sport. Knockhill has given them the opportunity to take part, through club meetings and renting the track for club groups. My own Bentley drivers club has a day out in August or September each year. That all brings valuable income to the area and to Fife generally. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider carefully the important issue of whether to promote what may, on paper, be an outstanding opportunity in Lanarkshire, to the detriment of Knockhill, which is so successful.
The hon. Lady flew kites about the enormous cost of major international events. It is all very well to say that we will attract formula 1 cars, but when it is difficult for a country to stage a grand prix, it is unlikely that we would get two—at Silverstone or Brands Hatch and one in Scotland. She rightly highlighted the immense cost of staging a grand prix, and the Pacific is likely to opt out next year. I think it wrong to say that we will have a formula 1 circuit, without any definite assurance that we will get a formula 1 race. The grand prix circuit is closely controlled. There is immense competition from Brands Hatch and, indeed, from Donington, which most drivers would say is a much more attractive course on which to drive than Brands Hatch.
It is not just a simple decision. We cannot just say that we should have a brand new circuit in Lanarkshire that would attract all the competition and sponsorship that is so central to modern motor racing. We should not go headlong for that concept, although it is a great vision, without realising that it could be to the detriment of Knockhill, which has done so much over the past 10 or 15 years to give those who are interested in motor sport the opportunity to participate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I am particularly pleased to be here today to respond to the debate, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), and equally to have heard the wise words of experience from my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). I am most grateful to both of them, because I believe that the debate enables us to clarify the position with regard to Knockhill race track and the proposed development at Forrestburn.
There was a discussion as to whether this was a sporting debate or an industrial development debate. I am the Minister responsible for industry and, therefore, perhaps the industrial development side. I looked at the background to the sporting side and asked to be briefed on the range of motor sports that are available in Scotland at present, and how many were pursued.
In motor car racing, we have motor racing itself; circuit racing of various classes; speed events; stage rallying, road rallying; auto tests and trials; and, indeed, stock car

racing. There are around 40 motor cycling clubs in Scotland associated with the Scottish Motor Cycle Union. Events include moto-cross, road racing, speedway, motor cycle trials and motor cycle rallies. Events take place throughout Scotland—I shall come to Knockhill in a moment. We have, for example, a world-renowned auto-cross event that is held annually in Fort William, which attracts a top-quality field from Europe and America.
Scotland—as even I knew—has a long tradition of success in motor sport at both national and international level. In formula 1 racing, to which the hon. Lady referred, I remember very well Jim Clark being the world champion in 1963 and 1965; Jackie Stewart held the same title in 1969, 1971 and 1973.
More recently in formula 1 racing, there is David Coulthard, whom I thought was from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, but when I asked earlier today, I was told that he lives in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang). David Coulthard's success in winning his first grand prix at Estoril in Portugal during this season, which has just finished, sets him up on a very promising motor racing career. I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in wishing him every success with his new team, McLaren.
In the 1960s, Scotland had it is own motor racing stable. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is old enough to remember Ecurie Ecosse, but I certainly do, and the driving at Le Mans and the successes that it had over those years. It helped to develop many budding young drivers, such as Jim Clark and Jackie Stewart. In the past few years, we have also seen Colin MacRae, who has been highly successful in motor rallying. He won the Royal Automobile Club rally in 1994 and earlier this year became the first British competitor to win the world rallying championship; he won it in a nail-biting climax in the Network Q RAC rally, showing tremendous skill and courage to come through an arduous final stage. Another Scotsman, John Clelland, this year won the British touring car championship, to add to his previous title won in 1989.
I think that 1995 has been a tremendous year for Scottish motor sport. I cover all this to provide a backdrop to today's debate, to emphasise the importance of sport, particularly motor sport, within the Government's wider priorities, and to stress that the future of Knockhill race track, which is the issue that we are addressing today, has indeed been carefully considered.
The hon. Lady clearly and ably set out her concerns for the future of Knockhill; she has previously raised those concerns with me in writing. I wrote to her on 14 September and 12 December, explaining the situation with regard to the proposed development at Forrestburn.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, I am well aware of the success of the Knockhill race track in recent years. It has attracted top-level competition to the site, and has diversified its interests into other areas. I gather that it also carries out test circuit work for prominent motor companies. As the hon. Lady said, it is an excellent example of the benefits of private sector investment in sport. I join her in commending Derek Butcher for his success with Knockhill, which is currently recognised as the country's national centre by the Scottish Motor Sport Federation.


I listened carefully to the concerns expressed about the proposed development of a new motor-racing circuit at Forrestburn in Monklands, and its potential impact on Knockhill. The hon. Lady pointed out that the Forrestburn project would receive financial support from public sector bodies—Monklands district council and Lanarkshire development agency—as well as from the European regional development fund. I understand that the concerns expressed about the potential displacement effect of the new race track on Knockhill have been carefully assessed by the funding partners.
The hon. Lady quoted from a letter from Scottish Enterprise, dated 27 October. I, too, have a copy of that letter. She also referred to a later letter dated 4 December, which states:
Further to my letter of 27 October, I have now had the benefit of discussion with the Lanarkshire Development Agency from which I learned that a displacement analysis had indeed been undertaken with regard to the project.
The decision to proceed by Lanarkshire has been taken within their authority and following proper analysis. Accordingly, Scottish Enterprise does not consider it appropriate to intervene in this matter.
The letter finishes with an apology for the fact that
the above information was not fully available at the time of my earlier letter.
I, too, apologise for the fact that the first letter from Scottish Enterprise to the hon. Lady was not fully informed. Earlier correspondence relating to Scottish Enterprise had made it clear that a displacement analysis had been carried out.
The proposed facility at Forrestburn is on a completely different scale from that at Knockhill. The Forrestburn circuit will be 3.2 miles long, which makes it as long as Silverstone and longer than Brands Hatch. It is well above the threshold for international racing events. The Knockhill circuit is only 1.3 miles long. I understand that the Forrestburn promoters intend to develop a circuit of international standards that would secure an FIA licence, which would allow events of international status to take place in Scotland.
I believe that the promoters of the Forrestburn facility will seek to attract such events as the British formula 2 and 3 championships, the German touring car championship and the FIA formula 3000 international championships. The hon. Lady will note that I have left out the formula 1 championship. I understand that it has not been included in the promoters' proposals; I suspect that they are being realistic about what they can achieve.
None of the events that I have mentioned is the kind that Knockhill would be able to attract. On that basis, it seems that the two facilities are considering essentially different markets, and accordingly the development of Forrestburn is unlikely to have an adverse impact on Knockhill. Indeed, the Forrestburn track is expected to bring new opportunities for co-operation with—for example—Knockhill through championships and back-to-back events. One of the wider attractions of Forrestburn is its potential to generate further interest in motor sport at an international level, and thus to expand the overall market, in which Knockhill will continue to play an important part.
As I have said, the Forrestburn project has secured funding from Monklands district council, the Lanarkshire development agency and the European regional

development fund, but it would be wrong to describe it as a public sector project. The vast bulk of the finance is coming from the private sector; the public agencies are very much in a minority supporting role.
I understand—this will interest the hon. Lady—that the Forrestburn project has secured the support of the RAC Motor Sports Association and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club. Both bodies have emphasised the importance of Knockhill in Scottish motor sport, and clearly do not regard Forrestburn and Knockhill as competing facilities.
I understand the hon. Lady's reservations, expressed today and in letters that she has written. I am no expert on motor sport, and I suspect that the same applies to the hon. Lady, but I suggest that the RAC Motor Sports Association and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club are experts. I urge the hon. Lady to seek an early meeting with those organisations, and to try to understand why they consider the two projects complementary rather than adversarial.

Ms Rachel Squire: I shall take the Minister's advice, and seek meetings with those two organisations. I am, indeed, no expert on motor racing, although I share my London flat with a woman formula 3 racing driver, which gives me a certain insight into the subject.
I was not claiming that no displacement analysis had been carried out; my point is that that analysis has not been as detailed and thorough as it should have been, and has not involved all the interested parties sufficiently.
I understand that Knockhill involves formula 3 racing. I know that a longer track is being promoted at Forrestburn, but I gather that shorter tracks have distinct advantages, in that they allow spectators to see far more: the cars come round even faster.

Mr. Kynoch: I am pleased to learn that the hon. Lady shares a London flat with a young lady who is involved in formula 3 racing. Some claim that I can remember being a member of Bristol university's motor club and winning a rally. Perhaps I was wrong to say that I knew little about motor sport, but I must confess that I am a little rusty.
The hon. Lady asked whether a full displacement analysis had been carried out. That is a matter for the funding bodies—and Strathclyde European partnership, the tourism advisory group, the Lanarkshire development agency and Scottish Enterprise are indeed satisfied that the displacement issue has been dealt with adequately.
People in Fife are bound to disapprove of the project until they see that it will increase the inflow of motor sport into Scotland to their possible benefit. It might be helpful, however, if the proprietor of Knockhill talked to the project team at Forrestburn. I cannot bring that about; I can only urge the hon. Lady to suggest that Mr. Butcher in Knockhill try to establish contact. When the project is completed—if it is completed—there may well be a working relationship allowing discussion. If, as I am assured, the two facilities will not be in competition, let us ensure that the relationship is established on an informal basis at a fairly early stage. That could allay some fears. I suggest, however, that the hon. Lady contact the two bodies that I mentioned earlier.
Other than Knockhill, Great Britain has no proper motor sports venue further north than Oulton park in Cheshire. Given the potential catchment area of Scotland


and much of the north of England, there is no reason why the motor sports market should not be able to support more than one circuit. That was certainly the case in the 1950s and 1960s, when Scotland had a number of successful circuits—for example, at Charterhall, Turnberry and Crail.
Given the resurgence of interest in motor sports—encouraged by the success of David Coulthard—I believe

that it is a growing business. I consider that the question of displacement has been properly investigated by the bodies concerned, and I see no justification for Government intervention.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the total tourism revenues in Scotland. [5201]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Some £2.1 billion in 1994, and we expect 1995 to be even better.

Mr. Merchant: I welcome my right hon. Friend's increased provision—to more than £18 million next year—to the Scottish tourist board. Will he confirm that that represents an increase of 20 per cent. over previous plans thanks to the reordering of priorities at Scottish Enterprise? Does he agree that that increase reflects the high priority that the Government give to the tourist industry in energising the Scottish economy?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. The difference between Conservatives and hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is that Conservative Members do not believe that organisations such as Scottish Enterprise exist for their own account. If organisations such as Scottish Enterprise are able to deliver their targets within reduced budgets and we deploy the money to help tourism, which is what we have done, that is a good deal for the taxpayer and represents the right way to use scarce resources to encourage the wealth-creating sector. Tourism has a vital role to play in rural Scotland and throughout Scotland, and I congratulate the Scottish tourist board on its magnificent work in increasing the numbers of people coming to Scotland. There is still great scope for improvement, and that is why, in a difficult public expenditure round, we were able to increase its budget by no less than 20 per cent.

Mr. Donohoe: The Secretary of State, in giving us that information, will know of the shambles that has resulted from the lack of funding for the celebrations next year of the bicentenary of the death of Burns. There is a severe lack of sponsorship from the private sector. In those circumstances, will he give a commitment to funding the celebrations directly from the Scottish Office to make up for the losses that are being incurred?

Mr. Forsyth: I cannot give that commitment, but I can tell the House that we propose to have celebrations of the bard's life, in both London and Scotland. On 31 January, we shall be holding a large function in London, to which a number of Opposition Members will receive invitations, to celebrate the life and works of Rabbie Burns. It is also our intention to mark the passing of Robert Burns's life with an event in Scotland, and it is appropriate that that should take place in the south-west of Scotland.

Sir Hector Monro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Forsyth: I can hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) saying, "Hear, hear." I am sure that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) will welcome that information also.

Mrs. Ewing: The Secretary of State will recognise that tourism is an all-year industry, and that winter tourism plays an important part in the livelihoods of people in rural areas. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State's work in establishing the Scottish avalanche information service. Does he accept that there is now some concern about the future of that organisation? Can we expect an early report

from the review group, because considered action will be needed to ensure that we continue and expand that important aspect of our tourist industry?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Lady. I established that avalanche warning service myself.

Mr. Canavan: It did not work last night.

Mr. Forsyth: This is a serious subject and people's lives are at risk.
I established the service on the recommendation of the distinguished mountaineer, Hamish McInnes. I was aware that there was a question mark over the service, and I gave instructions that the service should continue to be supported. We have given the service an extra £ 6,000, and we have commissioned a study, costing about £5,000, to consider the scope for expanding the service. I hope that one of the issues that will be addressed is whether we could cover a wider area using telemetric equipment.
I thought that some of the press reports were very unfair. The Government have every intention, as long as I am Secretary of State, of ensuring that the service is encouraged and expanded as far as is practically possible. However, we must ensure that money is spent wisely and that resources are used effectively, so that we get the best benefit out of the service.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to make that statement.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I take this opportunity to wish the Secretary of State and all Scots Members a braw hogmanay. Has the Secretary of State taken into consideration the interest in tourism in Northern Ireland, following the visit by the President of the United States, and will he urge the Scottish tourist board to use the Scottish-Irish connection to build up the tourist routes and encourage the growth of overseas visitors?

Mr. Forsyth: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his greetings for the new year. I wish him a happy Christmas and a happy new year, and you, too, Madam Speaker.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about tourism and Ulster, we Unionists must stick together on that and other matters. There is scope for encouraging tourism, and I am in discussion with the Scottish tourist board and others to improve the links between Ulster and Scotland. That will enable us to develop packages and tourism opportunities, and I shall raise the prospects for co-operation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the light of the hon. Gentleman's helpful suggestion.

Agricultural Subsidy

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current level of agricultural subsidy in Scotland. [5195]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Agriculture grants and subsidies in Scotland amounted to around £330 million in 1994.

Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend yet aware of the findings of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which, I understand, recently went to New Zealand? From what I have read in the newspapers, I believe that it has done away with its farmers subsidy system. At first, of course, that was greeted with consternation, but now it is being welcomed by farmers, who are doing very nicely without having to do all that dreadful paperwork. If he has been informed about that event, will he tell us a little about its outcome?

Mr. Robertson: The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs did go to New Zealand to consider a country that had abolished all agricultural subsidy under, I must add, a Labour Government, but we have no plans to follow suit. The Committee has still to report and I am sure that the Committee's Chairman will ensure that my hon. Friend has a copy of the report once it is published.

Mr. Home Robertson: I declare an interest, Madam Speaker. After years of half measures, will the Government now introduce a subsidised scheme, if necessary, for the eradication of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, both for the sake of better animal welfare and to restore confidence in Scottish beef? Meanwhile, will the Minister advise people that it might be risky to inject tissue from infected cattle into their brains, but that the more conventional practice of eating prime Scottish beef is much more enjoyable and perfectly safe?

Mr. Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, two weeks ago in the Scottish Grand Committee, we had a useful Adjournment debate, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), on that matter. I told the Committee on that occasion, and I repeat it now, that our measures to eradicate bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle are working. In Scotland, out of a total of more than 2 million cattle, the number of confirmed BSE cases in 1995 is expected to be around 600, some 27 per cent. below the 1993 level. We are fully aware of the problem and our measures are working.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that our support through the beef special premium and the suckler cow subsidy helps to provide the best prime Scots beef? Will he say yet again that prime Scots beef is safe to eat and that the education authorities and others who are depriving children of good Scots beef are wrong?

Mr. Robertson: I agree completely with my right hon. Friend. I know that, at this time of year, our thoughts turn to eating white meat, but, perhaps after Christmas day's

turkey, hon. Members on both sides of the House will decide to have a good, big, juicy steak, preferably from an Aberdeen Angus.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Government reverse their disgraceful decision to discontinue taking up the European Union milk subsidy, which will mean that many school children will be deprived of free school milk, with detrimental consequences for their health and nutrition? Is it not ironic that the Government are proposing that measure when, earlier this week, the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for health was complaining that 62 per cent. of Scottish five-year-old children suffered from tooth decay and that Scottish school children were near the bottom of the dental health league table?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should direct his comments to local authorities all over the country, and I hope that he will take the opportunity to raise the matter with his own Labour-controlled authority.

Student Loans Scheme

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the operation of the student loans scheme in Scotland. [5196]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I am pleased to say that the scheme is working well.

Mrs. Fyfe: That is not what the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment said on Thursday in Committee when he announced that the whole scheme had had to be postponed until October 1997 because the banks had difficulties over mergers and because of difficulties with information technology. That is in spite of the whole thing being hustled through in the Queen's Speech at great speed. Will the Minister extricate himself from this mess or will he be tied into his hon. Friend's shambles and share the blame for the mess that no one in Scotland needs or wants?

Mr. Robertson: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her consistency. She disagrees with the Government's approach and with that of her Front-Bench spokesmen to student support. We announced a postponement of the scheme after discussions with the banks and building societies to ensure a proper and smooth transition a year later. As always, the hon. Lady is scaremongering on student numbers and on student support. She cannot accept, and will not admit, that there are more students in higher and further education in Scotland than ever before in our nation's history.

Mr. Stewart: Can my hon. Friend confirm that parity between grants and loans will be achieved in 1996–97? Secondly, does he agree that parity will be maintained thereafter? Thirdly, does he agree that recent debates in the House have shown that the Opposition have no policy whatever?

Mr. Robertson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. As I have said, we have more students than ever before in higher education and the last survey showed that for the first time students from less well-off backgrounds are now in the majority in our universities and colleges.

Mrs. Liddell: The Government have been forced to walk away from the student loan privatisation proposals.


They would earn my respect and that of my hon. Friends if they would also walk away from the ill-conceived plans for nursery vouchers. Make no mistake about it, Labour is opposed to nursery vouchers. We will get rid of them when we are elected and will make sure that all three and four-year-olds get nursery education when their parents wish it. However, we have said—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have to bring two points to the hon. Lady's attention. First, I have not yet heard a question from her: that is most important. Secondly, we are dealing with student loan schemes and not with nursery vouchers.

Mrs. Liddell: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was just coming to my substantive question. We have put a number of questions on education to the Minister and have failed to get replies. Why are we not getting a response to our request for an independent assessment board in relation to nursery vouchers?[Interruption.] Why is the Minister not prepared to respond to detailed questions about student loans and student accommodation and about other aspects of education policy? Will he give us a substantive reply rather than the bluster that we are used to when he is flummoxed?

Mr. Robertson: What does the hon. Lady have against those from less well-off backgrounds? Yesterday she was at every media outlet criticising our scheme for assisted places, which helps children from less well-off backgrounds. Today she is ranting about student loans and nursery vouchers, which are designed to help everyone in society but particularly those from less well-off backgrounds. Over the recess she should take a long hard look at what she has been saying since she joined the Front Bench because some of it has been quite shameful.

Health Board Boundaries

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about health board boundaries in Scotland. [5197]

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): We continue to consider the impact of local government reform on Scottish health board boundaries.

Mr. Worthington: When I recently met people from Argyll and Clyde who were trying to persuade Clydebank to join Argyll and Clyde health board, they told me that the Secretary of State had said that there would be no changes to health board boundaries unless they were uncontroversial. If Clydebank joined Argyll and Clyde and lost its links with Gartnavel, the Western, Queen Mother's and Yorkhill hospitals, and had to manage with the appalling transport links with the Vale of Leven, that would be very controversial. Will the Minister assure me that plans to move Clydebank into Argyll and Clyde do not exist and will not exist?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We certainly have no plans to change Scottish health board boundaries in the immediate future.

Mr. Gallie: While I welcome the ever-increasing amount of money that the Government are prepared to spend on health services in Scotland, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that he has almost managed to achieve parity in funding in the Ayrshire and Arran health

board area? The redistribution of health service money around Scotland certainly benefits my constituents, and each and every one of them should say thank you to the Scottish Office.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have provided substantial expenditure of £4.2 billion this year. That is an additional £121.3 million, which provides real terms growth of 0.2 per cent. There is much higher spending per head in Scotland on health than there is south of the border. In Scotland £820 a head will be spent, which is 23 per cent. higher than in England. So very high priority is being given to that area.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister review the boundaries in Edinburgh and use that as a pretext for getting rid of his Conservative-appointed health board, which has presided over the shambles in the Royal Edinburgh hospital in my constituency, as evidenced in a secret report which shows that cleaning levels are "abysmal" and that staff shortages are chronic?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is no. We are, however, considering a bid from the Royal Edinburgh hospital and I shall let the hon. Gentleman know the outcome in due course.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the quality of health services provided by the health authorities is even more important than the delineation of boundaries? Does he agree that, despite all the knocking copy from Opposition Members, the quality of the health service in Scotland is very much better than it was in 1979?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At all times we will give top priority to the interests of patients.

Mr. George Robertson: When the Minister is looking at the boundaries of health boards, will he consider in particular Grampian—especially Grampian healthcare trust, whose plans for a new hospital in Stonehaven break new boundaries in the Government's push towards privatising the health service? Will he perhaps look up the pamphlet co-authored by the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1985, in which the Secretary of State wrote:
The rise of private medicine is an excellent thing and should be encouraged even more"?
The Secretary of State has never repudiated that, and indeed claims authorship of the pamphlet in "Who's Who". Is it not a fact that the Stonehaven project is but a Trojan horse for the mission of the whole Government—not just the Thatcherite rump over there—to go ahead with the ultimate privatisation of the national health service?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is engaging in scaremongering. The proposals for Stonehaven will result very much more quickly in the provision of a purpose-built, modern hospital than would otherwise have been possible any other way. Services will of course remain free at the point of delivery.

Earnings

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the change in average weekly earnings for (a) males and (b) females in Scotland over the last 15 years. [5198]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): In 1995, full-time male earnings were almost three times more and female earnings were almost three and a half times more than the 1980 level.

Dr. Spink: May I follow that happy answer by wishing you, Madam Speaker, a very happy Christmas? Is it not a fact that the enterprise culture promoted by the Government's policies, which has driven up wages by such a great degree, would be damaged, if not destroyed entirely, by a tartan tax as proposed by the Opposition, which would destroy jobs and put a 3p premium on the suggested 10p minimum tax level? That would be a 30 per cent. subsidy for working in Scotland at the lowest level of the economy. How could that be just or fair?

Mr. Kynoch: I am sure that all hon. Members wish you a happy Christmas, Madam Speaker and since it is Scottish Question Time, would want you to have good Christmas spirit. My hon. Friend's point is absolutely right. Clearly, the Opposition have not worked out the damage that they are intending to do to Scotland and to Scotland's business by the imposition of a tartan tax that is bound to force earnings up. I have not heard any detail from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in explaining what extra the tax will provide. It will simply force earnings up and provide absolutely nothing for the people concerned except fewer jobs in Scotland.

Mr. Wilson: Some people in Scotland object to paying taxes, tartan or otherwise, for the purpose of moving jobs from Keith to the south of England. But that is another story.
Does the Minister recognise the effect that the firm, Burger King, is having on minimum earnings in Scotland? Does he have it in him to condemn unequivocally Grand Metropolitan, a Tory party funder, for paying its employees as little as 20p an hour? Is not that a Tory national minimum wage policy in action?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman's question is no better than usual. He does not realise the damage that his party's minimum wage policy would do to Scotland and the whole United Kingdom. Labour Front-Bench Members will not even say at what level they propose to set a minimum wage; they simply say that they want one. If they want the same level as the unions want, £4.15, it is estimated that, if only half the differentials were restored, some 950,000 jobs would go.

Mr. Simon Coombs: The question of average weekly earnings is of no interest to people who are out of work. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to contrast the fact that unemployment in Scotland is falling steadily under this Government whereas it would undoubtedly rise as a result of the Labour party's minimum wage policy?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That would be the effect not only of a minium wage but of a tartan tax, which Labour wants to apply through a Scottish tax-raising Parliament and the imposition of the social chapter. Its policies would badly damage Scotland and the Scottish people.

Mr. McFall: Have not the Government imposed 22 tax rises in Scotland over the past three years? For the population at large, Christmas comes but once a year, but for the Government since 1992, Christmas has

come on average every seven weeks. What Christmas cheer will there be for the women who constitute 80 per cent. of the low-paid in Scotland and are paid less than the European decency threshold, or for the 107,000 people in Scotland who work for the miserably low rate of less than £2.50 an hour?

Mr. Kynoch: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will say what minimum wage he proposes. Will he confirm that Labour's tax-raising Parliament would not put a 3p tax on the Scottish people? Under this Government, taxation is UK-wide; unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman represents policies that would tax Scottish people higher than people in the rest of the United Kingdom and put people out of work.

Council of Ministers

Mr. Neil Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent meeting of the EC Council of Ministers he has attended. [5199]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I attended a meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 26 October 1995. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), will leave today to attend a Fisheries Council. It is expected to be concluded on Christmas eve, although I assume that that depends on my hon. Friend achieving a good settlement for Scotland's fishermen.

Mr. Hamilton: In the conscientious preparation that my right hon. Friend does before he goes to Council meetings, has he ever calculated the costs that would be imposed on Scottish businesses if Labour's policy of imposing the social chapter on Scotland became Government policy? Would not the Labour party's policies grind the Scottish economy between the nether millstone of Brussels burdens and the upper millstone of tartan taxes?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour party's policies would destroy jobs in Scotland through the imposition of a minimum wage, the social chapter and a tartan tax. I assume that the minimum wage in Scotland would be higher than in England to compensate for the fact that the Scots will pay a tartan tax, so their take-home pay on the same wage would he less than that of people in England and Wales.

Dr. Godman: Compliments of the season to you, Madam Speaker. The Minister mentioned his attendance at the Council of Fisheries Ministers. Did he discuss the construction of the new fisheries research vessel for his Department? Could I remind him that Ferguson's in Port Glasgow has bid for that ship? Were he to announce that it was successful, it would be a very pleasant Christmas present for the men and women who work in that excellent yard in Port Glasgow.

Mr. Forsyth: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the determination with which he has pursued the case for Ferguson's. We hope to be able to make an announcement shortly and I am delighted to be able to tell the House that it is not a matter on which I require the agreement of the European Community, so the hon. Gentleman can expect us to move fairly speedily. We will certainly do our best to look out for Scotland's interests.

Mr. Salmond: Should not the question he, at how many Council meetings has the Secretary of State actually


spoken? The reports were that he went to the Fisheries Council playing second fiddle to the English Fisheries Minister and never uttered a word. Given that last night he totally failed to convince his former colleagues and Euro-sceptics to bail out his Cabinet colleagues to save their discredited fishing policy, why is he not going to the Fisheries Council tomorrow? Where will Scotland be tomorrow without the Secretary of State for Scotland going to the Council to represent our interests—with him saying nothing?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Aberdeen, South, is attending that Council and will be speaking at it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the grace to welcome that, given his complaints. As for my attendance at meetings of the Council of Ministers, I think that I have attended more such meetings than the hon. Gentleman and I have spoken at a number of them, including the Justice and Home Affairs Councils and the Social Affairs Council, where I saw at first hand how disastrous the policies on the social chapter that the hon. Gentleman and the Scottish National party advocate would be for Scotland's work force. In the margins of those meetings, many of the Ministers whose countries have the social chapter say privately that they recognise that, because we have an opt-out from it, we are a magnet for inward investment. That is why Scotland has benefited from so much inward investment in jobs, which the Scottish National party would destroy.

Mr. McAvoy: The Secretary of State will be aware that we still have a Scottish steel industry. In that context, can he tell us what representations he has ensured will be made at the Council of Ministers that is dealing with the application by Irish Steel for a European Union subsidy? Will he rest assured that he has the full support of Labour Members in opposing such a subsidy to an Irish steel company—unlike the Scottish National party, which voted against Scotland's interests last week?

Mr. Forsyth: Halleluiah! Labour Members are denouncing subsidies to the steel industry and distinguishing themselves from the nationalists on the basis that they no longer believe in subsidies. We really have achieved a lot since 1979.

Mr. George Robertson: If the Secretary of State is ever allowed to attend another European Council of Ministers meeting, will he bear in mind and perhaps learn the lesson of the stinging humiliation that he and the Government suffered last night? Is not it a fact that, even though they put up the last two Thatcherites in the Government to try to appeal to the rebels, they could not stave off defeat, or the exposed chasm that exists in the Tory party on Europe? Just as he cannot speak for the people of Scotland, with 87 per cent. of them opposed to him and his Government, is it not true that the Government cannot speak for this country in Europe? The sooner we have a general election and get a Government who can speak for the whole country the better it will be for us in Europe and in Britain.

Mr. Forsyth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was able to follow the debate last night, but I should have thought that he would have recognised that the Labour party amendment was defeated by eight votes and did not reflect a policy that enjoyed unanimity on his Benches. Several of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues

argued against the common fisheries policy, while the Opposition Front Bench argued in favour, so he should not present the idea that the Labour party is united on anything in Europe save in one respect; it is the party that would sell out our veto in Europe, hand power to Brussels, ensure that our veto was replaced by qualified majority voting in respect of the social chapter and the rest and which, on fishing, has nothing whatsoever in its manifesto because it has nothing to say to the fishermen of Scotland or of Britain.

Deregulation

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to accelerate the deregulatory process, with special reference to small businesses in Scotland. [5200]

Mr. Kynoch: The Scottish Office is playing its full part in the deregulation initiative and is particularly alert to the concerns of small firms.

Mr. Steen: As the Secretary of State has not referred one regulation to the Deregulation Committee to deregulate, and as his commitment to deregulation and his support for keeping enforcement of European directives from Europe to the minimum are well known, will he say something about how we can reduce the burdens on small businesses so that they can become more effective and do not have to bear the burdens of officialdom?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is aware that Conservatives are totally committed to deregulation; the Deregulation Committee has been bombarded with proposals and the Scottish Office has a number of proposals in the queue waiting to go to the Committee. I can assure my hon. Friend that my officials are well aware of the need not to hassle small businesses—the life-blood of this country. If my hon. Friend has any concrete evidence of firms being hassled, he should give it to me.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister will be aware that many small businesses are in rural areas and he will know from the rural White Paper published last week that, in one decade, employment in Cumnock and Doon valley fell by 27 per cent.—the largest fall in a rural area in Scotland. Is it not crazy to cut the grant to Scottish Enterprise by £33 million and reduce the help to those small businesses in rural areas? Is it not equally crazy for the Secretary of State to cut capital consents to local authorities and restrict their capital borrowing, thus ensuring that some of the money that was to come from the European Community will no longer be forthcoming? My constituents who are unemployed will not have a happy Christmas.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is aware that unemployment is falling significantly across Scotland. The hon. Gentleman does not recognise that the Government are committed to ensuring that taxpayers' funds are used wisely and sensibly. The hoard of Scottish Enterprise has assured us that, with its reduced budget, it can maintain and even improve output. The hon. Gentleman does not recognise that an important industry in rural areas such as ours is tourism, which employs about 8 per cent. of Scotland's work force. There has been a 20 per cent. increase in the budget to the Scottish tourist board—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is good news for tourism and rural economies.

Oral Answers to Questions — Capital Spending

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to authorise new capital spending under section 94 consents for local authorities for the financial year 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [5202]

Mr. Kynoch: In February or March 1996.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will not the announcement on capital expenditure in November, which restricts the amount which local authorities can spend through capital receipts on capital expenditure in 1996–97. and


the current constraints on the amount of capital that can be funded from revenue, mean that £160 million or £170 million less capital expenditure will be devoted to capital projects next year in Scotland? Is it not passing strange that, after 16 years in office, £100 billion from North sea oil and gas and £60 billion from privatisations, the Government are putting constraints on capital expenditure, which means that less will be spent on roads, bridges, schools and industrial development north of the border next year?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman refers to the capital allowances. He must accept that, at present, capital expenditure by local authorities in Scotland is running significantly higher than elsewhere—it is 77 per cent. higher overall than in England. It is therefore only right and proper that we should try to cut the borrowing costs which divert funds from front-line services. That is why the constraints have been put in place.
When the hon. Gentleman came to see me with the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), we talked about specific projects in his constituency. We also spoke about the opportunity to use the private finance initiative. I hope very much that local authorities will fully explore that possibility, because they could bring forward projects sooner than would be possible if the authorities used purely public funds. They may well find that they get those projects significantly cheaper by using private expertise.

Mr. Stewart: Will my hon. Friend say something about Government policy towards smallish local authorities which may have major capital projects to finance? I have no doubt that my hon. Friend has the Eaglesham bypass particularly in mind. I am grateful to the Minister of State for meeting a delegation on that recently. Can my hon. Friend say how those projects fit into the allocation process?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend will be aware of the challenge funding arrangement, which will be maintained. Some road and transport spending may be settled by those means, and I am sure that that arrangement will be considered for the particular bypass that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister may know that his colleague, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), visited my constituency recently to look at multi-storey flats. He will no doubt agree that it is important that more and more of such flats, which are not the worst place in the world to live, should have concierge systems. The local authority has tried its utmost to offer to as many multi-storey flats as possible the security of concierge systems. Will the Government release funds to allow local authorities to install such systems, which offer safety particularly to the elderly living in such flats?

Mr. Kynoch: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman's local authority on the work that it has done on security. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced increased funding for closed circuit television, and that local authorities have greater flexibility on how they spend their capital allocations.

Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister not understand that, by forcing councils to use 25 per cent. of their capital receipts next year and 50 per cent. of them in the following year to repay outstanding capital debts, he is effectively cutting public investment in Scottish housing over those two years by at least £300 million, as well as depriving the already depressed construction industry in Scotland of £300 million-worth of business? How in God's name can that make any sense when there are still tens of thousands of Scots homeless and on the streets, and when the Government's own national housing conditions survey revealed that Scottish housing is riddled with damp and condensation and is in disrepair, which is an utter national disgrace? Why does not the Government give the people of Scotland and Britain the only Christmas present they want from the Government —a general election in the new year? That will give people the opportunity to cast the Government into the political oblivion that they justly deserve.

Mr. Kynoch: I look forward to whenever the general election campaign begins, because I shall be able to ensure that the people of Scotland are aware of the reckless spending that the Labour party would introduce in the country. The Opposition must accept the fact that, since 1987, local authority housing debt has risen by almost £1 billion to £3.938 billion—an increase of nearly 20 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman were to encourage stock transfers, he would get receipts. He must accept that the cost of borrowing is significant and that it is diverting taxpayers' money into funding debt rather than it being used to deliver services.

Oral Answers to Questions — Local Government Finance

Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government funding. [5203]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: On 19 January.

Mr. McMaster: Does the Secretary of State recall that, last Christmas, hundreds of my constituents in Paisley and Johnstone were flooded out of their homes and that some of them have been unable to return to those homes? When I recently met the Secretary of State, he promised to introduce a new flood prevention Act for Scotland. When will he introduce that Act and, when he does, will he ensure that resources are available to the new unitary authorities so that they can put flood prevention schemes in place?

Mr. Forsyth: I gave the hon. Gentleman those undertakings, and we shall deliver them. He knows that I promised to consult about the matter in the new year, and I shall do that. It will then be a matter of finding a slot in the legislative programme.
Is it not a terrible condemnation of Labour councils that they must be forced by statute to do something about the flooding of people's homes? We shall place a duty upon them to ensure that the present discretion that they enjoy is replaced by a requirement to take action when people are flooded out of their homes. Strathclyde has singularly failed to take such action.
As to the legislative opportunities, I am sure that Labour Members will be delighted that the new procedures in the Scottish Grand Committee and the


opportunities for introducing new legislation mean that we may be able to take more action in respect of flood prevention than would have been possible otherwise.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Perth and those living in the Tay valley are very grateful to the Government for their prompt action during the flooding of the Tay last year? We welcome the pledge that my right hon. Friend has given at the Dispatch Box, that he will impose a statutory requirement on the new authorities following consultation. It is absolutely essential that local authorities are made aware of their duties and responsibilities with regard to flooding.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. However, I do not wish to misrepresent the position in respect of the Tayside region. I think that I am correct in saying that the Tayside region is taking forward a flood prevention scheme using the discretionary powers that I have mentioned. Unlike some Labour authorities, such as Strathclyde or Central region, Tayside has chosen that course of action and the Scottish Office is providing resources through the capital allocation to assist it in that process.
My hon. Friend is right to acknowledge the progress that has been made, but I do not see why that cannot be achieved using the existing discretionary powers. In response to the representations from the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and the concerns that were expressed not only in his constituency but in Kilmarnock, we have said that we shall consult on the issue of imposing a specific mandatory duty upon local authorities.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his Department announced earlier today a cut of £400 million in real terms in investment in council housing over the next three years—which is equivalent to some 9,000 houses? How can the Secretary of State justify that decision against a background of too many of our fellow Scots sleeping rough and of overcrowding? When there will be no room at the inn for many thousands of Scots this Christmas, why does he assume the mantle of Scrooge so enthusiastically?

Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he knows that the figures released recently show a welcome reduction in the number of homeless people. He also knows that we have spent £2 billion on housing and that we have been responsible for refurbishing about 750,000 council houses. He knows the figures for the increase in home ownership. I do not know whether he travels through Scotland on his way to Orkney and Shetland, but, if he does, he must see the transformation that has occurred under the Government, and I would have thought that he would welcome it.
The hon. Gentleman puts the worst possible interpretation on the figures. Given that he is a prudent and an honest man who argues for higher taxation in order to provide higher expenditure, I am amazed that he has anything to do with the policies of the Labour party, which seems to want to see Scotland and Scottish local authorities disappear under a sea of debt. It wants to fritter away the resources that we make available for housing by paying interest charges and by reducing opportunities for the future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: The pretty one—Rachel Squire.

Ms Rachel Squire: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the Budget announcement raising Department of Social Security thresholds in respect of means testing for residential and nursing care is welcome, it will place severe additional funding pressure on local authorities? Will he further agree to pursue additional funds for that purpose so that local authorities can ensure that no one in need of residential or nursing care is denied it or is forced into accepting a second-best standard of care?

Mr. Forsyth: I am delighted, Madam Speaker, that political correctness has not found its way into the Chamber.
I should have thought that the hon. Lady would have welcomed the changes introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, as they benefit elderly people who have scrimped and saved throughout their lives yet are placed at a disadvantage compared with those who have not. As for giving local authorities more money, if local authorities such as Edinburgh were not abandoning projects to spend £400,000 on corporate identities and painting their vans, and other Scottish local authorities were not receiving 45 per cent. more per head in grant than equivalent authorities in England, there might be a case for considering allocating more money to local government in Scotland. Local government in Scotland has grown at a rate of 6 per cent. while in England it has declined by 6 per cent. over the same period. Its expenditure and its borrowing have grown and it is out of control because it is mainly under the control of the Labour party.

Oral Answers to Questions — Tree Diseases

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into tree diseases; and what part he takes in its targeting. [5204]

Mr. Kynoch: The Forestry Commission carries out a wide range of research on tree diseases. Its work is summarised in the commission's report on forest research, a copy of which is in the Library. My right hon. Friend approves the commission's expenditure plans for research.

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend's expertise in these matters is well known. Can he tell the House whether fungus diseases are on the increase? I am particularly concerned about honey fungus and the way in which it attacks a wide variety of trees and shrubs. What discussions are taking place with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to produce a cure for fungus diseases?

Mr. Kynoch: I was not aware that my hon. Friend had appreciated that I had branched out into new areas.

Mr. Pawsey: Not barking up the wrong tree.

Mr. Kynoch: I am certainly not barking up the wrong tree. As it is Christmas time, I have taken a great interest in what could be wrong with my Christmas tree.
The only completely effective way of dealing with an outbreak of honey fungus is to remove as much as possible of the infected plant, including the root system, and to replant a more resistant species. I understand that


there are some chemical treatments on the market, but none is completely effective. My hon. Friend can be assured that we are trying to attack the problem. He will be happy to hear that many of our native broadleaved species such as oak are relatively resistant to honey fungus.

Oral Answers to Questions — Violent Crimes

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of reported violent crimes in Scotland in each of the last five years. [5205]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Some 19,700, 23,200, 24,900, 21,000 and 21,400 respectively.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister not ashamed and horrified by those figures? Can he explain why some old-age pensioners freeze to death because of VAT on fuel and why thousands of youngsters are homeless and refused benefits by the Government, yet violent crime continues to increase and is at an all-time high? Does one have to be a thug or a criminal to prosper in today's Tory Britain?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman should be perfectly well aware that we are spending about £86 million on urban aid in deprived areas; that should be of considerable assistance to his constituents and to many others in Glasgow.
Violent crime has fallen; serious assaults are down by 13 per cent. since 1992. Offences of handling offensive weapons are down by 19 per cent., as are robberies by 22 per cent.—a substantial step in the right direction. I am glad that we are bringing closed circuit television to more town centres, to quell crime levels still further. The experiment in Airdrie, for instance, was a complete success. We are allocating £4 million more for that purpose.
We are also bringing in proposals which mean that prisoners can expect to spend the whole of their sentences in custody, apart from a small amount of earned remission. We believe that that will be a deterrent. Of course there are appeals against too lenient sentences. When some criminals were recently caught on television, their sentence of four years was increased to seven as a result of the appeal by the Lord Advocate.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that the passage of the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 over two years ago made an enormous difference to controlling the circulation of knives? Since then, there have been 500 convictions and 300 people have been gaoled. That is an example of the Conservatives in Scotland leading and England eventually following—in the shape of my private Member's Bill. Would my hon. Friend consider an amnesty for knives along the lines of what was done in Scotland? In 1993, 4,500 knives were thrown away in bins—the only place for them to be.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I wish my hon. Friend every success with her knives Bill for England. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) to control knife assaults has been remarkably successful. As my hon. Friend says, there have been a great many arrests—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is all very well for Opposition Members to grumble,

but they opposed giving the police the powers of search in the first place, while the Conservatives forced the Bill through.
We shall give top priority to ensuring that those who carry knives are caught through the necessary operations, and brought to justice.

Mr. Connarty: The Minister will be aware of the success of Operation Blade in Strathclyde and Operation Combat in Tayside. One hundred and ninety-seven knives were found on the 1,011 people who were stopped—almost a 20 per cent. success rate—in the Tayside operation. Is the Minister concerned, as I am, by the fact that some police authorities which I have contacted have said that they do not have a knife problem in their areas and do not intend to carry out such operations? Will he assure me that the Scottish Office will encourage police authorities to run operations such as Blade and Combat in their areas, so as to cut out knife carrying in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is yes. The key piece of evidence is the fact that the number of homicides fell substantially as a result of the operation in the west of Scotland. Operation Combat led to many arrests and also to a fall in knife crime rates over a comparable period in the year concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — Drift Netting

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the fishing industry to discuss drift netting for migratory fish. [5206]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I expect to meet members of the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards early in the new year.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is huge concern in Scotland about the north-east drift net fishery, which regularly takes 50,000 salmon a year that would otherwise have run up Scottish rivers? Why is drift netting banned in Scotland, as it is in most other countries, but legal in England? Will my hon. Friend meet his MAFF colleagues to ensure that the fishery is closed down, with full compensation?

Mr. Robertson: I know that my hon. Friend has pursued this issue on many occasions at Scottish questions and with many Scottish Fisheries Ministers. He will be pleased to know that the phasing out of drift netting is proceeding, and that the number of licence holders has dropped by nearly 30 per cent. since 1992.

Sir David Steel: Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of the Tweed Foundation and the research that it is doing into migratory fish? Will he keep a close watch on the numbers being caught in the open seas, bearing in mind the decline in the east coast rivers of Scotland?

Mr. Robertson: I am happy to agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman. He will be pleased to know that interest groups, including the National Rivers Authority, support a shorter phase-out period.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to hasten the phasing out of the north-east drift net? He will appreciate that the wild salmon stock in our east coast rivers has been falling fast. That will inevitably have


a long-term effect on the tourist industry, for example. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to say whether he has obtained a minimum import price for farmed salmon?

Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend, who had my job until July, is fully aware of the problems that have had to be faced. He has pursued the drift net issue from the Government Front Bench, as he has from the Back Benches. He will be pleased to know that there are now fewer licences. There were 149 in 1985 and in 1995 the number is 99 and falling.
My right hon. Friend will be delighted to know that the European Union has announced a minimum import price. I am delighted to have had the opportunity of working hard with the Scottish industry in tackling the problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — NHS Trusts (Management Expenses)

Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with NHS trusts on management expenses. [5207]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Discussion between officials of the Scottish Office and NHS trusts on trust matters take place on an on-going basis. Trusts in Scotland have been asked to reduce their administration costs.

Mr. Hughes: Even on the Government's own figures, there has been a staggering increase in administration costs over the past four years from £218 million a year to £355 million. As Scottish Office Ministers have defended those increases to the last ditch, what reasons can the Government give for asking for a cut in administration costs without acknowledging incompetence and failure?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind that more patients are being treated than ever before. That factor must be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that expenditure on the national health service in Scotland has increased steadily in real terms. We are insisting on a 5 per cent. switch of resources from administration, which I think he would support. That applies to trusts and health boards. That should result in £14 million more being spent by trusts on patient care. An additional £4 million will be available to health boards. It is right that we should concentrate on the top priorities of heart disease, mental illness and cancer. These are three of the highest priorities in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — Local Government Electoral Reform

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to implement local government electoral reform. [5209]

Mr. Kynoch: None.

Mrs. Michie: Last night, the Secretary of State said that he was open to positive suggestions on further constitutional reform. Will the Minister try to persuade him that one of the most enlightened reforms that he could undertake would be to introduce a fair voting system based on proportional representation for local government elections? That would make councils more accountable and representative and it would be an

incentive for voters to vote. The reform should be attractive to the Secretary of State because, if implemented, it might just result in more Tory council seats. After all, Tory councillors are becoming an endangered species in Scotland.

Mr. Kynoch: When talking about a fair electoral system, the hon. Lady should talk to her colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party about a fair electoral system for their proposed tax-raising Parliament. She seems to have botched together some deal to get her party's proposals off the ground. It seems that about 56 of the 129 Members that they are proposing would be party hacks.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party has never changed constitutional rules to secure narrow benefits at elections? We are concerned about having a constitution that will stand the test of time, as has the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom. We shall have no truck with Members being selected in smoke-filled rooms instead of at the ballot box.

Mr. Kynoch: I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — National Lottery

Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of benefits to Scotland from the national lottery. [5211]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scotland is doing extremely well from the national lottery. To date, more than 560 awards have been made, totalling around £125 million.

Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the sums available for Scotland from the national lottery for the arts, heritage, sports, charities and the millennium fund are far larger than originally predicted, that that is bringing widespread benefits to Scotland, and that the national lottery is a brilliant national achievement?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some £23 million has gone towards Scotland's Field of Dreams at Hampden. The arts have received £27 million, sports £16 million, charities £7 million, heritage £22 million and the millennium £40 million, which includes a millennium forest that will extend the cover of native woodlands in Scotland. Some 80 per cent. of the awards have been for less than £100,000, so hundreds of small sports clubs, amateur dramatic societies and local museums have benefited to an extent beyond their wildest dreams.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Austin Reilly of the national stadium committee, Queen's Park football club and the Scottish Football Association on obtaining £21 million from the millennium fund for the continuing redevelopment of Hampden? Will he also find an opportunity to discuss with the Secretary of State for National Heritage the changes to the rules in the operation of the national lottery to ensure that some of the money can be used for revenue spending for the arts rather than entirely for capital spending, thus removing the threat that hangs over Scottish Opera and some of our other great cultural organisations?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will have heard the hon. Gentleman's question. I share the hon.


Gentleman's great enthusiasm for Hampden's success and for that of many other projects in Scotland, including the Glasgow film theatre, the Scottish gallery of modern art,

and the Strathclyde Poverty Alliance, in which he has an interest. In addition, £1.5 million has gone to Tayside regional council for a sports complex.

Director General of Oflot

Dr. John Cunningham: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about the conduct of the Director General of Oflot and her decision to retain him in his post.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I met the director general yesterday to discuss the issues surrounding the flights and hospitality that GTech provided for him and his staff on visits in America.
My confidence in the director general remains. There is no doubt about his integrity. He has played a major part in the launch of the highly successful lottery. He was responsible for the conscientious and effective evaluation of bids for the licence to run the lottery. The process was endorsed by the National Audit Office as
comprehensive, consistent, logical and properly controlled",
in line with the statutory duties placed on him.
The visits to America took place some months after Oflot awarded the main licence to Camelot. The director general considered with care the issues raised, recorded them thoroughly, and made no attempt to hide them. He declared his interests appropriately. There has been no question of his having sought or received personal gain from the visits that he undertook.
The director general is accountable to Parliament. He is making a full report on his overseas travel and hospitality arrangements to the Public Accounts Committee. He has assured me that there are no other issues that may come to light subsequently which could affect my decision in this matter.
I have told the director general that I do not think that his acceptance of the flights was wise in the context of his role as regulator of the lottery. Within the statutory role that he performs, which is to ensure that the lottery is run with propriety, that the interests of players are protected and, subject to that, that the proceeds for good causes are as great as possible, it is inevitable that he needs to work closely with Camelot. I have told him that this fact makes it all the more important that he should maintain a proper distance from the company and its constituent parts, and be seen to do so, taking all steps to guard against any possible misunderstanding of his actions.
The director general has assured me that, should any issues arise that may lead to a potential conflict with his role as regulator, he will seek guidance from my Department and inform it of the decision that he takes as to how to proceed.
I can inform the House that the director general has announced today that Miss Anne Rafferty QC will head an inquiry into the allegations by Richard Branson against Mr. Guy Snowden of GTech. The inquiry will start in the new year, and the report will be published. The House will be aware that Miss Rafferty was a member of the royal commission into the criminal justice system, chaired by Lord Runciman. She is currently chairman of the Criminal Bar Association and a recorder of the Crown court, sitting in the south-eastern circuit.

Dr. Cunningham: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that her astonishing decision to give Mr. Davis a vote of

confidence was rightly met with universal condemnation in the press today? Does she acknowledge that, on Monday, during questions to the Department of National Heritage, she withheld important information about Mr. Davis's disregard of clear advice from her Department? As she twice promised on Monday to report to the House on her decision, in columns 1204 and 1205 of Hansard, why did she then announce her decision in a press statement and not in the Chamber?
It has taken a private notice question to get the right hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on which she assured the House two days ago she would report. In less than three days this week, she has re-established a pitiful record for inconsistency and bad judgment.
Does the right hon. Lady recall that, as recently as Monday of this week, her own departmental officials were briefing the press that Mr. Davis had to go, yet within 24 hours she had confirmed him in his post? As Mr. Davis has brazened out his position and the Secretary of State has backed down, will she now say to whom and on what basis the regulator is accountable? Is it not absurd for Mr. Davis to suggest that he can carry out his public responsibilities for the lottery effectively only if the very organisation he is there to supervise pays his expenses? That is a completely new doctrine of public accountability.
Does the point in the right hon. Lady's letter to Mr. Davis yesterday—that his visits took place after the licence was awarded to Camelot—mean anything at all? Surely it is irrelevant, as his duties and responsibilities to regulate Camelot and GTech persist. She has confirmed him in that post. How can she possibly defend the regulator's conduct when she and her Department specifically advised him against the visits before he undertook them?
Is it not clear that, if the civil service management code applied to Mr. Davis, his position would be completely indefensible? Civil servants are told that they
must not receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party which might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity.
Is that not precisely what Mr. Davis has done? The code goes on to say:
In drawing up and in interpreting their own standards of conduct, departments and agencies must pay full regard to the need for staff to conform and be seen to conform to the principles".
Has not Mr. Davis blatantly disregarded those principles? Does that not make it clear that a code of conduct for regulators of private monopoly organisations is now long overdue? Will the right hon. Lady undertake to present such a code to the House without delay?
Has not this whole episode exposed an abysmal lack of judgment, not only by Mr. Davis but by the right hon. Lady herself? Is it not clear from her inadequate response to this private notice question that she apparently has learnt nothing from the events of the past week?

Mrs. Bottomley: The decision was taken only after careful consideration, and an examination of all the facts. It remains the case that Mr. Davis, as the regulator, has overseen the introduction of an incredibly successful lottery—probably the most successful, and the most effectively regulated, anywhere in the world.
There can be no question of withholding information from the House. The right hon. Gentleman is correct: the question of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was answered at 3.30 pm. I hope that I have been entirely open with the House throughout. Yesterday, at the moment when I sent the letter to Mr. Davis, I also placed a copy in the House, and gave copies to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
The regulator of Oflot is indeed required to follow the directions for which the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 provides. I issue directions to him under section 11; he is required by section 14 to report annually to the Secretary of State, and I lay his report before Parliament. Indeed, I drew attention to that report at Question Time earlier this year, because it is a thorough, comprehensive and impressive document.
The regulator also answers to the Public Accounts Committee. His performance before that Committee—he replied at length to questions, openly giving information that he had recorded meticulously on all aspects of those questions—was an example of his sense of responsibility and accountability to it. Under section 15 of the Act, the regulator must supply me with any information that I require.
As for the question of advice given to the regulator, it is indeed the case—as I have made clear—that, in general terms, he was advised that he should pay the costs of the hospitality involved in the trip to America. The money used to pay for that trip was provided by Oflot and the taxpayer. In the case of these incidents, the regulator took the view—for operational reasons—that the only way in which he could visit all the different lottery centres and return to work in London in the time provided was to accept GTech's offer.
I do not think that that was wise, but it must be said that—notwithstanding the Labour party's innuendo—it did not constitute an acceptance of gifts: "gifts" implies personal gain, and there is no suggestion of any personal gain in this case. As my hon. Friends are only too aware, the beneficiary was the British taxpayer.
Throughout the affair, there has been no suggestion of the regulator's honesty or integrity being in question. The Labour party's victimisation, pursuit and hounding of a man who has done his job as well as the regulator has demonstrates that it is unfit to govern, now or ever.

Mr. Peter Brooke: My right hon. Friend had a very difficult decision to make, and no one would have blamed her if she had decided differently. She determined the issue fairly, judiciously and decisively. Are we not lucky to have in the director general a man who has created a most efficient lottery, as yet untainted by corruption? Is it not the case that only those with the languid intellectual self-assurance of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) would believe that total infallibility is as universal among princes as it is always supposed to be among popes?

Mrs. Bottomley: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I believe that we should make a considered decision that is right, rather than a rash decision that is wrong. I have weighed all the elements of the case very

carefully, and I consider it right to retain confidence in Peter Davis, who has so far done an extremely impressive job.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Secretary of State refrain from implying that the Public Accounts Committee has given Mr. Davis a clean bill of health? Will she recognise that many people would like to know not only whether she was satisfied about the unwisdom of his accepting hospitality and flights from GTech, but whether she has asked any questions of Mr. Davis about the possible unwisdom of involving GTech in the British national lottery when that company in the United States has left a trail of charges in the criminal courts that are in the public domain? Senior officers have been accused of bribery, fraud, corruption and other crimes. Has she or any of her officials done anything to investigate that appalling background to a company that, on the face of it, appears ill suited to be the lead in running a clean national lottery, far from sleaze?

Mrs. Bottomley: I was referring to the National Audit Office report, which commented on Mr. Davis's evaluation of the eight bids to run the national lottery, and on the investigation into all the constituent parts, including whether it was suitable, fit and proper for GTech, as a member of the Camelot bid, to undertake that responsibility. The NAO report said:
the evaluation process was comprehensive, consistent, logical and properly controlled".
As for the Public Accounts Committee, what I said was that the director general had given it thorough, open and honest answers at great length, on the basis of information that was carefully recorded and documented. He is a rigorous and thorough individual, which is characteristic of an accountant.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Are not the Opposition making themselves look trivial and foolish by taking this stand against Oflot's director general? Can there be any justification in attacking the integrity of that decent, honourable and successful man, who was trying only to save the taxpayer money—[Laughter.]—look how they laugh when it is a question of saving the taxpayer money—to no benefit whatever to himself? Can the justification be any more than a determined attempt to destabilise the lottery, which has been an outstanding success, and to undermine the Government with it?

Mrs. Bottomley: Undoubtedly, the Labour party always seeks to resort to personal vilification rather than carefully weighing up the evidence. My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right: the lottery has been a tremendous success. That affronts the Labour party, which loathes success. It would take it away from the operator, cap the prizes and reduce the remarkable amount of money coming through to good causes. Only today, there were another 22 grants from the national heritage memorial fund, which means that 4,600 different projects have benefited from the lottery.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the answer that she says she gave me at 3.30—which, incidentally, I did not receive at 3.30, but that is trivial—was nothing to do with the American flight? It was to do with Australia. Will she also confirm that her fax to me of the letter that was going


in the Library was a welcome courtesy, but of no use to 650 other Members, and that it did not allow them or me to ask a question as to a decision on Monday?
Will the right hon. Lady now explain why she told me the day previously in an answer that her Department knew about these flights the week before the Public Accounts Committee hearing, why her accounting officer did not inform the National Audit Office of those flights, and why she did not, as a courtesy, inform the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee about those flights? We are left with a sneaking suspicion that, had it not been for the answer to one question at the PAC meeting, this matter would never have become public.

Mrs. Bottomley: It was neither appropriate nor necessary to take the steps that the right hon. Gentleman describes. My concern is second to none in wishing the lottery's good name to be maintained. It is a successful and well-run lottery. As I have explained to the House, I reported to it as I announced that decision. It was right to bring the uncertainty to an end.
Once I had had the opportunity, not only to discuss the matter with senior officials at my Department, who had spent a great deal of time with the director general, but to speak to him myself, as swiftly as I could, I took the opportunity of informing the right hon. Gentleman and the House, to bring the uncertainty to an end and to allow the director general to get on with his work.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is it not obvious that Opposition Members detest the tremendous success of the lottery, and would love to overturn it? They cannot succeed in doing that: all they can do is chip around the edges to try to undermine it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the director general is a completely honest man who has done nothing bad, but that, as a distinguished accountant, he has acted more like an accountant than like a judge, which would have been wiser in the distinguished appointment that he occupies?

Mrs. Bottomley: I entirely share my hon. Friend's assessment. The lottery is certainly a great success. The director general's duty is to ensure the propriety of the lottery, to make sure that the interests of those who play are protected, and to maximise the amount for good causes. As my hon. Friend and 4,600 good causes are aware, the results for good causes have exceeded all expectations. I wish to maintain the lottery's good name, and that is the commitment of the director general. I have made it clear, albeit that these incidents took place several months after the award of the licence to Camelot, that his steps were unwise.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Did not the Secretary of State realise from the very beginning that Peter Davis was connected to this dodgy firm in the United States, which is well known for handing out bakhanders to get its own way? That is the firm that he has been cosying up to, and he has been flying here, there and everywhere using its money.
I am drawn to the conclusion reached by somebody, not in the House but out there, one of the people who buy lottery tickets, who said, "What is it Peter Davis knows? How does he manage to save himself from getting the sack? Does he know where the bodies are buried? Does he know about all the lottery fiddles that have been covered up by the Government?" When will this

Government learn? They are hanging on to save this man's skin, but as sure as night follows day, like all the rest of them they have defended, in the new year he will have to go, and a different story will have to be told.

Mrs. Bottomley: It saddens me to hear the hon. Gentleman speak in that way on these matters. If I had taken the view that Peter Davis was unfit to continue as the regulator, I would not have hesitated to say so. Having looked fairly and thoroughly at all the evidence, it is my view that he is a proper person to continue with that task, which so far he has undertaken successfully.
I am sure that people "out there" are influenced by repeated comments, such as those made by the hon. Gentleman, which are neither fair nor proper. I understand that Mr. Davis's wife shared childbirth classes with the wife of a director of GTech 20 years ago. That is not a matter that people are required to enter in a register of interests. The hon. Gentleman may understand that.

Mr. Peter Luff: Does my right hon. Friend understand that her decision to stand by the director general of Oflot is widely welcomed by Conservative Members, and by the country as a whole? Does she share my sense of revulsion at the attempt by the Labour party to destroy the reputation of an honest public servant for narrow party advantage? What does she think that kind of gutter politics does for the reputation of politicians as a whole?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend speaks exactly the view that I share—that, if someone from outside the public service comes in to take on a position of responsibility, he has as much right as anyone else to be treated fairly on the basis of the facts. I thoroughly scrutinised all aspects of this case, and I believe that it is right for him to continue with the task. Labour's attitude does it no credit at all.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Whether the Minister likes it or not, is not the sad reality that, because of what business people call the "smell factor", Mr. Davis is from now on damaged goods? He will not have the legitimacy and credibility that are necessary for the proper performance of his functions.

Mrs. Bottomley: I think that I have made it clear that he has done an effective job. He has achieved a better result for the national lottery and for good causes than anyone expected. If the Labour party thinks that the decision should be made on the "smell factor", that makes it even less fit for government. People and their jobs and responsibilities should be considered on the basis of the evidence and the facts, and not on the smell from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Was that question from the Opposition not a dreadfully obscene example of blood sports, in pursuit of not a politician but an official who thought that he was doing something good by saving his employer—in this case the taxpayer—expenses?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend encapsulates the situation precisely. Mr. Davis has been competent, effective and successful. I believe that he should continue in his job.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Secretary of State may not know it, but she has issued a


serious criticism of the director general from the Dispatch Box. She said that he seriously lacked wisdom in this matter. In those circumstances, an honourable person would resign from his position, or it should be her job to remove him. From now on, should not Oflot be called "Offload"?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman did not—I believe—encapsulate the words that I used. What I said was that, in this case, which took place some months after the licence had been awarded, I took the view that it was unwise—albeit there was no personal gain, no lack of honesty or integrity and all aspects were carefully recorded and indeed discussed when questions were asked.
The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at the National Audit Office report, because it is as complimentary an endorsement of the rigour and integrity of the whole process of selection of the operator as any Member could wish to see. The director general of Oflot deserves a great deal of the credit for that successful process.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her courage in not taking the easy way out of this problem. It would have been very easy to ask Mr. Davis for his resignation. Is it right to think that a successful, intelligent and able man should be condemned and forced from a job that he is doing very well because of one instance of something that we might describe as naive?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend speaks for a great number of Members. The decision was not wise, but it has to be seen in the context of somebody undertaking his task extremely successfully and effectively. I should like to quote from a comment made by a former colleague of the director general. It said of Mr. Davis:
He is totally honest and of the highest probity. He is a very meticulous man who writes down everything and all of the expenses he incurs.
That certainly coincides with my experience of him.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the right hon. Lady say whether the friendship of 20 years ago was continued, and whether it was known about at the time of the appointment of Camelot?

Hon. Members: McCarthyism.

Mrs. Bottomley: As my hon. Friends have said, this is becoming McCarthyism of the worst sort. Is the man fit to continue in his role or not? I have said that he retains my confidence, because I believe that he is a man of integrity and honesty. He has always been entirely clear about his past and present acquaintances. There is no evidence that I know of to suggest that the friendship affected his judgment in any way at all. I rely once again on the evidence of the National Audit Office, which gave such a thorough endorsement of his evaluation process of the eight people who bid for the lottery licence.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend has earned additional respect on the Conservative Benches for not taking the easy option. Does she not draw parallels with the visits of certain members of the National Heritage Select Committee, including

myself and including the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), to Tattersall's, the Victoria state lottery in Australia, before the contract was awarded? That involved GTech too. There was no question of impropriety there, and there is no question of impropriety in this case.

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Were the matters to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred a few moments ago known to those who advised Mr. Davis? How long before the visit was that advice given? Has the Secretary of State asked Mr. Davis why that advice was ignored? What was his reply, and why did she find it of overriding significance?

Mrs. Bottomley: Much as I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's question, the process of investigating GTech as a constituent part of the bid for the lottery was thoroughly and rigorously endorsed. I would have to refer back to the question by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to reply to the hon. Gentleman's question more thoroughly.

Mr. David Lidington: Despite all the innuendoes that have been levelled by Mr. Davis's critics, no one has come up with a shred of concrete evidence of corruption or malpractice. Is it not despicable that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) should seek to smear an honest man's name in an attempt to bolster his flagging ratings with his party?

Mrs. Bottomley: The easy option is to find a scapegoat and make him or her carry the can to get a round of applause. That is always the Labour party's approach. Labour Members always look for a scalp when dealing with an issue. Some issues are more complex, and many factors are involved. We have looked at all the aspects of this case carefully and thoroughly. It would be unfair and poor judgment to take this incident out of context and say that, in spite of all that has been achieved, the director general should forgo his job.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does not the Secretary of State realise that Mr. Davis made a serious error of judgment and disregarded the advice given to him, in order to save peanuts compared with what the national lottery makes? The public expected him to resign or the Secretary of State to sack him. They now want to know whether he, she or the Government will go first.

Mrs. Bottomley: The incident involved no personal gain to the director general; only the British taxpayer benefited. He also took into account his need to return to work as director general in London as swiftly as possible. I have made it clear that it was not a wise decision, but the idea that it affected his judgment or integrity in any way is nonsense.

Mr. Simon Coombs: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her firm stand, both on her decision and in dealing with questions this afternoon? Does not the director general, Mr. Peter Davis, preside over the most successful lottery in the world, and should not that count in his favour? Can it be doubted that GTech's position in all this is simply that it has developed the most successful lottery technology in the world, which


is widely used by lotteries throughout the world? Are not the Opposition today motivated by the principles of a McCarthyite witch hunt, aimed not so much at Peter Davis as at my right hon. Friend and the Government?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right.
I urgently confess that I misled the House a moment or two ago. I announced that, earlier today, an extra 22 awards were made from the national heritage memorial fund for the lottery. The figure should have been 33, bringing the total to 4,625 awards. I apologise for that factual error.
My hon. Friend mentioned GTech, which is a well-known company involved in lotteries. But that was not the material factor in terms of the Camelot bid. The important factor was whether the group was fit and proper to undertake our national lottery, and whether its bid would maximise the return for good causes. As I have said repeatedly, the scrutiny of whether the group was fit and proper was undertaken very carefully. As for maximising the return for good causes, the result has exceeded expectations, as the House knows only too well.

Mr. John Maxton: As one who voted for the Second Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill, and who supported the lottery throughout and believes that it is a success, may I tell the Secretary of State that, for that success to continue, the director general of Oflot must be above all suspicion? I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Mr. Davis is not, and that therefore he must go.

Mrs. Bottomley: I know of no one who has said that he is a subject of suspicion. I did not know that that was the issue involved. As far as I am aware, no one has suggested that he has been influenced or biased in exercising his decisions, but that is what the hon. Gentleman implied.
I also take the view that, because of the sensitivity of his job, the director general should act with propriety and be seen to do so on all occasions and that his decisions should not be the subject of misunderstanding. That is why I expressed my opinion that those incidents, which took place several months after the licence was awarded, were unwise. That is why I also sought an assurance from the director general that, in future, he would keep in even closer touch with officials from my Department, and would report back on any such matters.

Mr. Peter Hain: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, at the time that the director general undertook the freebie flights from GTech, the contract for the scratchcards had not yet been awarded, and that he subsequently had a significant say in the awarding of that contract?

Mrs. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, he is correct that that took place before the scratchcard licences were awarded, but after the main on-line licence was awarded. The director general did have a part to play in that matter. His concern is to maximise the return to the good causes, and it is wrong for hon. Members to imply that his judgment was contaminated, particularly in the light of the National Audit Office's endorsement of his approach and process.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Conservative Members have said that the director general

is not dishonest. I would not say that he is dishonest, but he is very stupid. It is also very stupid for the Secretary of State to say that it was all right for him to take those matters on board after the licence was awarded. How would she feel if chairmen of licensing boards accepted hospitality from public houses for which they had granted licences? She would be the first to condemn local authority people—[Interruption.] I let the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) speak, and he should allow me to speak.
The people out there in our constituencies who are paying for the lottery think that this is a very strange situation. If the right hon. Lady is going to back the director general, they will be asking for her resignation.

Mrs. Bottomley: I made it clear that the director general retains my confidence, because, overall, he is competent to do the job, which he is doing effectively. He made it clear that he accepted the flight so that he could visit more lottery centres in the United States than he would otherwise have been able to do, as they are nowhere near the main airline centres. It was simply his wish to complete the task swiftly, and return to London to get on with his job here.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Does not the Secretary of State realise that the answer that she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) transformed the nature of these exchanges? It is not just the regulator but she herself who should go. [Laughter.]Conservative Members may well laugh—I suspect that they may soon laugh on the other side of their faces. Throughout these exchanges, the right hon. Lady has repeatedly emphasised the fact that the lottery licence was granted before the regulator took the flights. She misled the House by not acknowledging that—

Madam Speaker: Order. No, no. The right hon. Lady has not misled the House. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that remark, and rephrase it?

Mr. Wilson: I withdraw.
Has the Secretary of State not been in danger of inadvertently giving a false impression by suggesting that no pecuniary benefit was available to GTech in the period subsequent to the gifts and favours being taken, because a hugely lucrative business in scratchcards followed it?
Following on from the question of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), those of us who have followed the matter from the outside know that there were vast questions about the propriety of GTech—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is not how the House should respond to statements—hon. Members must ask questions of the Minister. I have allowed the questions to run for some time, as there is much interest in the subject. I now want the hon. Gentleman to ask a direct question, so that the right hon. Lady can answer it. Two more hon. Members wish to ask questions, and I ask them to have them ready, as I want them to ask them briskly.

Mr. Wilson: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Apart from the scratchcard issue, how have even this Government ended up appointing a lottery regulator whose defence turns out to be that he has been a personal friend of the principals in GTech for 20 years?

Mrs. Bottomley: I have repeated at great length that, in all the circumstances, I have not found the director


general to be no longer worthy to continue in office; I have confidence in his ability to continue to regulate the lottery. I set it out clearly in the letter to him, and I do not think that I can give the House any further help.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is not the Secretary of State aware that, at the meeting between Richard Branson and Peter Davis to discuss the bribery attempt, a note was passed to GTech, not by the Treasury solicitor, as GTech's press release of 11 December states, but by Peter Davis or Oflot? Will the Secretary of State investigate that matter, and investigate what was received in return?

Mrs. Bottomley: I have already announced to the House that Miss Rafferty is establishing an inquiry into the allegations made by Richard Branson against an officer of GTech in an interview broadcast on 11 December, to consider the facts surrounding a meeting between Richard Branson and Mr. Guy Snowden in September 1993, and to report to the director general any bearing those allegations or facts may have on the exercise of his powers under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.

Mr. George Foulkes: As the Secretary of State said that Mr. Davis took the free flights to save the taxpayer money, will she explain why her officials advised Mr. Davis against taking those free flights?

Mrs. Bottomley: I did not say that he did it "to" save the taxpayer money; I said that the taxpayer was the beneficiary, rather than Mr. Davis personally. I said that he took the flights for operational reasons in order to be able to complete his visits to a great number of lottery centres and return to the UK at the earliest opportunity. Officials, in general terms, advised the director general to be responsible for his travel and hospitality costs, because of the normal rules on such matters. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Let the right hon. Lady answer the questions.

Mrs. Bottomley: The director general, Oflot and the British taxpayer funded the vast sums involved in the visit—for the flights and the basic accommodation. Mr. Davis took the view that, in this particular incident, it would not be appropriate for him to hire a jet independently, and he accepted the offer in order to complete the task faster and return to England. There is no question that the incident affected his judgment, integrity or honesty.
I made it clear, however, that I believed that it was unwise, which is why I asked the director general in the letter to ensure that he keeps in closer touch in future. It is not my judgment that that incident should deprive him of the job that he has so evidently carried out successfully and effectively, to the great benefit of the British people and the good causes that have received extra funds from the lottery.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House please give us the details of future business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for the period after the imminent recess—at least I hope that it is imminent—will be as follows:
TUESDAY 9 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 JANUARY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Security Service Bill.
THURSDAY 11 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill.
Debate on progress on business links on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.
More provisionally, the business for the second week back which I expect to include is as follows. On Monday 15 January, there will be the Second Reading of the Finance Bill; on Tuesday 16 January, the first allotted Opposition day, there will be a debate on an Opposition motion, the subject of which will no doubt be decided nearer the time; I am not yet in a position to give details of the business on Wednesday 17 January; on Thursday 18 January I intend to have a debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House; and Friday 19 January is the first day for Second Readings of private Members' Bills.

Mrs. Taylor: May I thank the Leader of the House for that information? He knows from business questions last week that we were pleased that he decided to withdraw from debate the regulations that would withdraw benefit from asylum seekers. We advocated the withdrawal of the regulations because we thought it was wrong that such measures should be activated before a debate had taken place in the House. The Leader of the House will be aware that the Select Committee on Social Security is also considering that issue, and I wonder whether he can give an assurance to the House that the debate on those regulations will not take place before we have the benefit of the Committee's report on them.
Is it possible to have an early debate on the conditions in Holloway prison, which so alarmed the new chief inspector of prisons? In particular, it would be useful to have a debate so that Ministers have an opportunity to tell the House how long they have been aware of that appalling situation.
Do the Government intend to publish a White Paper setting out Government policy on the issues to be discussed at the intergovernmental conference of the European Union, which will start at the end of March? That would be very useful, because it is important that the House has ample opportunity to debate such issues before those negotiations and discussions get under way.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that there will be a ministerial statement and report to the House on the Fisheries Council, which starts tomorrow, so that


Members will be able to judge to what extent the Government have taken on board the concerns that led to last night's defeat for the Government?

Mr. Newton: I cannot give an assurance that the Government will not propose a debate on the regulations on benefits for asylum seekers until the intended report is received from the Social Security Select Committee: not least because I think that urgent action is needed, for reasons that have been explained to the House. I do not know when the Select Committee's report might arrive. I repeat what I said last week—the undertakings that the Deputy Prime Minister and I gave should provide an opportunity for the Social Security Select Committee to complete its deliberations. We would welcome sight of the report before any debate takes place in the House.
The hon. Lady left it to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—I make no complaint about that—to deal with this morning's debate. Therefore, she will not have had time to receive a report on it, and still less to study it.

Mrs. Taylor: Yes, I have.

Mr. Newton: If she has been able to see a report, it must have been by mysterious means into which I will not inquire. In that case, she will be aware that I made some observations on the subject of Holloway in my speech this morning, to which I refer her.
On the subject of a White Paper on the IGC, I am not in a position to add to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in the recent debate, and in other exchanges that have taken place.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would expect to report to the House, in the usual way and at the appropriate time, on the outcome of the Fisheries Council.

Mr. David Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend find time when we return from the recess for a debate on waste in local government so that hon. Members have a chance to consider the £200 million being wasted by Hackney council on paying 100 employees who should be made redundant but for the council's no compulsory redundancy policy?

Mr. Newton: As I have observed on several recent occasions, I am glad to say that there will be further opportunity to debate local government matters. For example, my hon. Friend may be fortunate in catching the eye of the Chair during the debate on the local government finance orders, which normally come before the House towards the end of January or early February.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I support the plea for an urgent report to be made early in the new year on the result of the discussions in the Fisheries Council meeting to be held later this week. The business has yet to be announced for 17 January, and it would certainly be of benefit to some of us who have fishing interests in our constituencies to know what chance there is of a sensible reform of the common fisheries policy at next year's IGC. Does the Leader of the House also accept that there is a need for a debate in Government time on the privatisation of the railways?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to respond with an immediate

acceptance of the latter request in his question, given the amount of discussion that there has been just recently about the railways. However, the franchising process is now going ahead extremely well, so I see some attractions in such a debate. I might even be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman in due course.
On the first half of the hon. Gentleman's question, obviously he can and has supported the representations about the common fisheries policy, and in my characteristically reasonable way, I have taken note of his support for the representations made.

Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend consider trying to give time for a debate on exports, so that we can review the considerable achievements in recent months of British industry in the export market, in particular the engineering industry of the west midlands? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that such a debate would give us the opportunity to expose those Labour party policies that can be found and the damage that they would do to our exporting record?

Mr. Newton: I might venture to suggest to my hon. Friend that the debate that I have announced for Thursday 11 January on progress on business links might provide an opportunity to make some reference to exports because the purpose of those links is to improve all the supporting services to firms, not least small firms, which are contributing greatly to our export performance.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: May we have a debate on child labour laws in Britain and the totally inadequate consultation exercise that the Government are carrying out, which will conclude at the end of January? It is proposed to deregulate further child labour so that children in Britain will be less protected than any of their counterparts in the European Union. It is important that we have a debate on that instead of the Government introducing further deregulation through the back door.

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Lady's request, and she would expect no less. I wonder whether people who raise such issues have contemplated how much unnecessary upset would be caused, for example, if we followed the path that some advocate, which would prevent a large part of the British population from making newspaper rounds, which help the community and those making them, and which seem entirely reasonable to me.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Can my right hon. Friend find time for another debate on legal aid? He will be aware that many of our constituents are concerned that the Lord Chancellor continues to make civil legal aid available to persons from overseas, who have no real and substantial connection with this country. He will be aware that the funds available to the Legal Aid Board are limited. How can we explain to our constituents who are just above the income or capital limit that there is no money available to give them legal aid, but money is available for persons coming from abroad?

Mr. Newton: I would not rule out further discussions on that matter in due course, but I cannot promise them in the first fortnight back after the recess.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I am sorry to hear that the Leader of the House does not have the modern facilities that I have in my office, which enable me to watch what is going on in the Chamber


while I do constituency work. Some weeks ago, he may recall that I asked him for a debate on Ordtech and the result of the Court of Appeal judgment in that case. I am still waiting for an answer, and I note that 17 January is available for such a debate. Should we not have that debate before the Scott inquiry reports at the end of January, so that we all know what has been going on?

Mr. Newton: I shall examine what the hon. Gentleman has said. I must admit that I was still thinking about his comment about the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). I understood that she had other commitments elsewhere; I did not realise that they were with the television. My response was directed at my interpretation of her remarks that she had seen an account of this morning's proceedings in the House. But perhaps she has merely talked to the hon. Member for Perry Barr, who I am sure gave her a very accurate account of events.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Last week I raised with my right hon. Friend the matter of the adverse impact of road construction programme cuts upon business in my constituency. My right hon. Friend referred to the business links debate that is to occur on Thursday 11 January. Would it be appropriate for me to raise during that debate the matter of the adverse impact that those cuts are having upon Macclesfield and its links with the excellent and growing Manchester international airport?

Mr. Newton: That would be for the Chair to decide. As I suspect my hon. Friend knows, the links in the phrase business links refer to the flow of information rather than the flow of goods. I am not sure whether I am allowed to refer to his presence as he is below the Bar of the House, but it must be within the knowledge of the House that the Secretary of State for Transport has heard what my hon. Friend has said. Therefore, I think that we can assume that his remarks have found the right target.

Mr. George Foulkes: Has the Leader of the House considered the request that I made last week for a debate on the textile and carpet industry? Since then, I have received a letter from the British Carpet Manufacturers Association expressing concern about the grant that the French Government are to give to the Beaulieu carpet group in Belgium to establish a plant in northern France and the alleged unfairness of the grant under European Union rules. That is one of many issues that could be considered during such a debate. Many people are concerned about the state of the textile and carpet industry and I think that hon. Members on both sides would welcome an early opportunity to debate the matter.

Mr. Newton: I was not aware of the particular point that the hon. Gentleman raised in his question, but I shall ensure that it is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I keep a little list—if I can put it like that—of matters for debate. I cannot promise that I shall be able to strike the hon. Gentleman's name off that list, but I can promise him that he is still on it.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Could we have a debate on law and order early next year so that we can highlight the way in which the Criminal Justice Acts are

beginning to hit the villains? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the sentence of 27 years' imprisonment passed today on a burglar whose practice was to threaten to poke out a pensioner's eye with a screwdriver? Is that not a disgraceful crime and is it not jolly good to see that such villains are increasingly being dealt with?

Mr. Newton: By happy coincidence, a photocopy of the front page of the Evening Standard happened to fall into my hands on my way into the Chamber, so I am aware of the story. I think that many people will welcome the length of the sentence in that case. As my hon. Friend says, that sentence results from criminal justice legislation passed by the Government: section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I was the only hon. Member present who was unable to participate in this morning's debate—such debates used to have short speeches, but they were often long speeches today. I wished to raise the matter of the democratic deficit in local government, Northern Ireland, this country and the European Union. Would it not be a good idea to have an early debate on that subject, to which the Leader of the House could respond?

Mr. Newton: We have had a number of opportunities in recent weeks to debate matters relating to the European Union, and no doubt there will be more in due course. I felt sorry for the hon. Gentleman this morning: it was unfortunate that he was here for three hours and did not manage to participate in the debate. I had harboured hopes that he would be the only person to wish me a happy Christmas—I shall assume that he meant to do so when he rose this afternoon.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the recent publication of the Committee on Public Accounts on the Child Support Agency's continuing problems. If, as I suspect, those problems continue to dominate his postbag and surgeries as they do mine, would it be appropriate to have a debate on the Child Support Agency early in the new year?

Mr. Newton: I still have a number of cases in my own surgery. The most recent was last weekend. I acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend makes, and I hope that in return he will acknowledge that the report was based on the agency's operation in its first year—1993–94—which is some considerable time ago. At the very least, we should acknowledge that much has been done since then to improve the accuracy and performance of the agency, although of course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give careful consideration to the report's recommendations and respond in the usual time in the usual way.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I sat through the fisheries debate yesterday, but was unlucky enough not to be called; does the Leader of the House agree that the ministerial report to the House on the decisions taken by the Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting should form the introduction of a debate on the practical implications of such decisions? Members who represent fishing interests would then have time to assimilate those decisions and their consequences. In addition, such a debate would allow us to put to the Minister the concerns of the fishermen whom we represent.

Mr. Newton: In view of the hon. Gentleman's frustration—which I had not previously realised—


in respect of the first part of yesterday's business, I am glad that he managed to get in several times during the second debate. However, even with my natural desire to please everyone before Christmas, I cannot promise him an immediate further debate on fisheries.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: While wishing my right hon. Friend a happy Christmas, I hope to influence him to have a debate on how we can attract people into public life. Is he aware that the appalling display earlier today, when the Opposition attacked a perfectly honourable person, will discourage anyone from entering public life when they might be prone to such witch hunts?

Mr. Newton: I shall not add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage said on a number of occasions, but the exchange had an unfortunate flavour of wishing to disregard all the considerations of what had actually happened and the judgment as to how the director general was doing his job and, as my right hon. Friend said, of simply finding a scapegoat and taking the easy way out. That is not the way that any of us ought to behave on anything.

Sir Anthony Durant: May we have a debate after Christmas on the Crown Prosecution Service, bearing in mind press reports that the Lord Chancellor is looking at the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service?

Mr. Newton: Of course, I shall add that to my list of issues for consideration. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill that is currently being discussed in another place will arrive here in due course. As that is concerned with procedures, it might just possibly provide some opportunities, but in any event, as I have said to my hon. Friend, I shall put his request on my little list.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of last night's defeat, would not it be a good idea in the new year—perhaps the Leader of the House could study it over the holidays—for the Government to introduce a system so that we could have a confidence motion once a month, so that the Government could be ready, just in case, for all the subsequent defeats that might happen? In other words, they could programme it in and perhaps they might get their people to turn up more often.

Mr. Newton: That seems a long way from wishing me a happy Christmas. I shall put that thought out of my head for a while.

Madam Speaker: I will wish the right hon. Gentleman a happy Christmas.

Mr. Newton: Thank you Madam Speaker. I reciprocate that wholeheartedly.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: It would be a day when I did not get a point of order.

Mr. Fabricant: Has anyone wished you a happy Christmas, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: Yes—the Leader of the House, on behalf, I hope, of the entire House.

BILLS PRESENTED

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)

Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Portillo and Sir John Wheeler, presented a Bill to re-enact, with omissions and amendments, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 9 January and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

SECURITY SERVICE

Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Forsyth and Mr. David Maclean, presented a Bill to give the Security Service the function of acting in support of the prevention and detection of serious crime, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 9 January and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

IRISH STEEL (STATE AID)

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10836/95, relating to the restructuring of the Irish steel industry; considers that the proposal in the Document is unacceptable as it stands; and judges that any package that provides for aid for Irish Steel could only be agreed if further stringent conditions are attached in the interest of safeguarding employment in the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Wells.]

Question agreed to

Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill provides an exceptional solution to an exceptional problem. For parts of the Humber Bridge Board's debt due to the Secretary of State, it provides the power to suspend interest payments and to write off debt. It will enable both parties to secure a long-term solution to the problem of managing the debt. Its two clauses implement an undertaking given to Parliament in July 1991 that the Government would, at an early opportunity, promote legislation to provide express powers for the writing off and suspension of parts of the Humber bridge debt.
The Humber bridge was promoted by the local authorities of Humberside through the Humber Bridge Acts of 1959 and 1971. They established the Humber Bridge Board with a preponderance of members from Hull but also with representation from other local authorities which supported the building of the bridge. Those Acts empowered the board to borrow but did not provide express powers for the Secretary of State to pay grant to meet unpaid debt or interest, or otherwise to write off debt or suspend payment of interest on it.
The local authorities of Humberside promoted the Acts of 1959 and 1971 to provide powers for the construction of the bridge—but it still had to be financed. The Government view at that time—1965—was that the bridge was not needed; but in 1966 the Government executed a U-turn. I cannot begin to speculate as to the motives for such a sudden change of policy.

Mr. Toby Jesse!: May I tell my hon. Friend that if I catch the Speaker's eye, I shall seek to explain the reason for the sudden change of policy?

Mr. Watts: We await my hon. Friend's contribution with interest.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Would the Minister be kind enough to tell the House the opinion of Her Majesty's Opposition at the time?

Mr. Watts: I shall certainly come to that. The more cynical among us—perhaps I should say, behind me—might say that it was the looming by-election in Kingston upon Hull, North that tipped the balance in favour of the project; for it was on 18 January 1966, shortly before the election, that the then Secretary of State for Transport—now the Baroness Castle—announced from the hustings that the Humber bridge would be built. The late lamented lain Macleod said at the time that this was not a sensible project. The history of the financial difficulties of the project suggest that he was probably right about that, as about so many other things during his distinguished career in public service.
In 1971, the Government confirmed that they would provide loans for the Humber Bridge Board to finance the costs of constructing the bridge. It opened in 1981, plagued by the industrial disputes that were a feature of the era in which it was built.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister be kind enough to say which Government were in power in 1971, and whether any binding contracts had been entered into before June 1970?

Mr. Watts: It was of course the Labour Government in 1965 who said that the bridge was not needed and who executed a U-turn in 1966, promising, for whatever motives, that the bridge would be built. In 1971, a Conservative Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) came to the rescue of the promoters of the scheme by agreeing to provide loans—

Mr. McNamara: Answer the question.

Mr. Watts: When the hon. Gentleman reads the record he will see that I have answered his question—and given him rather more information than he wanted.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Watts: Not again. I want to make progress. The bridge took nine years to build. How times have changed! The new Dartford bridge was built in just over three years and the new Severn bridge should be built in less than four. In both cases, it is the private sector, not the taxpayer, on which the costs of construction and debt fall. The bridge took a long time to build and the cost was greater than originally planned. Above all, it has carried less traffic than expected. It was built to promote the regeneration of South Humberside but the expected economic growth did not occur.

Sir Anthony Durant: The building of the bridge represents a public scandal of the time. The losses are about £14 million a year. What contribution has been made by Hull city council? Has it paid anything?

Mr. Watts: Local authorities' contributions have not been significant. A substantial amount of toll revenue is generated but it is nowhere near enough to provide the necessary funding. In recent years, the national taxpayer has been contributing £40 million a year as grant in aid pending legislation.
It was always envisaged that toll income would be insufficient to service the debt in the early years. Legislation therefore provided that unpaid interest could be capitalised. That led, however, to an exponential growth in the board's debt, which rose from £151 million in 1981 to £439 million in March 1992.
After tolls were set at their present levels in August 1989, the board formally presented my Department with a case for financial assistance in July 1990. The board undertook to promote a private Bill to index its tolls from the date of the last toll increase in 1989. For their part, the Government undertook to promote a Bill to provide express powers for writing off and suspension of some of the debt. The promise to legislate has enabled the Government, since February 1992, to meet unpaid annual interest charges of about £40 million by grants under the appropriation Acts. It is a temporary expedient and it cannot be allowed to continue much longer. We need a restructuring of the debt that will enable as much of it as possible to be repaid over the maximum 60-year period that legislation provides for repaying the debts.
The bridge board's Bill, by which it sought to index its tolls, was introduced in another place in November 1991. It did not make progress and it was lost at the end of


October 1994. Unfortunately, the board has done nothing in the meantime to increase tolls from their 1989 levels. It is now at last preparing an application to increase tolls under current legislation.

Mr. Stuart Randall: Was not the system of funding wrong or flawed? The interest charges were £15 million a year and revenue from tolls was £10 million. Surely it is common sense that the system was flawed. It was clear that those using the bridge would not provide the necessary finance.

Mr. Watts: The assessment of the project that took place before the bridge was built must have been flawed in many instances. If such a project had been presented to a Conservative Government—I explained this by quoting the remarks of the late Iain Macleod—it would not have been given a green light, as it was given in the circumstances of a by-election in 1966.
We shall be continuing our discussions with the board on its financial position as we prepare to implement legislation, should the House approve the proposed legislation.

Mr. Michael Brown: I shall seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I might speak in support of the Bill. I am sure that my constituents will welcome the Bill, and they have only two questions—I suspect that that applies to the constituents of all hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. My constituents want to know how much of the debt the Government will write off under the powers of the Bill, and by how much tolls will increase in the event that the board comes before the Department with a request to increase tolls. Those are the two questions that everyone is asking, on both sides of the bridge.

Mr. Watts: The board must decide what level of toll increase it wishes to promote. Once it has made that proposal, there is a period during which those who are affected by the proposed increase can raise objections. If required, there can then be a public inquiry. At the end of such an inquiry, it would fall to my right hon. Friend to decide whether to confirm the order promoted by the bridge board. Because that decision is of a quasi-judicial nature, I cannot anticipate either what level of toll the bridge board might promote or what level of toll my right hon. Friend might be prepared to approve after the proper authorisation procedures have been carried out.
As for the way in which the powers will be exercised, before I can give a clear answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and others who are interested, we must first have further discussions with the bridge board to ascertain what level of debt can reasonably be serviced from tolls and how much it is reasonable to place as a continuing burden on national taxpayers to bail out this disastrous project.
The exercise of powers under the Bill requires an order to be laid before the House with the consent of the Treasury. It would be subject to the usual negative procedure, so there will be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the way in which the powers are exercised.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I apologise to the Minister for missing the first minute or so of his speech. Will he reflect on the fact that many of my constituents, who live a long way from the bridge in

question, have identified what they perceive as an inconsistency in Government policy? A monopoly has been established in relation to access to the Isle of Skye over the bridge that has just been built, and tolls are very high. When one considers the cumulative sums from the public purse which have been poured into the Humber bridge project for 30 years, the injustice visited on a low-income, fragile part of the UK economy seem even more outrageous. Will the Minister reflect on that fact and perhaps have a word with his Scottish Office colleagues about it?

Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am responsible for railways in Scotland, not roads. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not wish me to deviate too far from the specific issue of the Humber bridge. However, I have no doubt that the people of the city of Hull will have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that they should presumably be burdened with the extra cost of £40 million a year, all in the interests of ensuring equity with his constituents.

Mr. Jessel: Although my hon. Friend referred to putting some of the cost on to the users of the bridge—everyone accepts that they cannot cover all of the interest losses—and, although he said that part of the cost will have to be paid by the taxpayer, does he accept that there is a case for putting even a small part of the cost on to the city of Hull?

Mr. Watts: According to the legislation under which the bridge was promoted, any part of the debt that is not paid from tolls is a charge mainly on the taxpayers of Hull, although two other authorities have a smaller obligation. Clearly, it is not the Government's intention that the whole of that burden should so fall. Whatever the errors of the past, we do not consider it reasonable that such an extra burden—a burden presumably wished on the people of the city of Hull for several decades by their elected representatives—should fall on them.
Equally, I must have regard to what is equitable for national taxpayers. In assessing how the powers should be exercised, we shall therefore have to consider what level of debt cannot possibly be paid from tolls, even on the most optimistic assumptions. We shall then consider what cannot, in the medium term, be so funded and determine a suitable amount to be covered by the suspension of interest payments. There will then remain an amount of debt that we expect to be funded in other ways. That would be through a mixture of tolls and, possibly, burdens by precept; the bridge board has precepting powers. It will be for the bridge board to propose how that funding should he arranged. If it involves a large increase in tolls, as I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, a procedure allows for objections, appeal, public inquiry and, ultimately, a decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I referred earlier to the lack of action by the bridge board to maintain the value of its tolled income. In our continuing discussions with the board on the financial position and how we may implement the proposed legislation, I will hear in mind the fact that the failure of its Bill and the hoard's failure to make use of other procedures that are available to maintain toll increases in line with inflation since August 1989 resulted in the


forgoing of at least £10 million to £11 million of revenue. For an average council tax payer in Hull, that would be, roughly, an additional £37—or 7 per cent. each year.
Clause 1 confers powers on the Secretary of State for Transport to write off sums and suspend payment of interest on sums payable to him by the bridge board. It provides that that power to remit debt should be exercisable by an order, subject to the negative procedure in the House. Before my right hon. Friend can make such an order, Treasury consent is needed.
In seeking to provide a long-term solution to the problem of managing the Humber bridge debt, we shall seek to safeguard the national taxpayer from any unnecessary contributions. It should be clear to the House that the national taxpayer's existing contribution of £40 million a year is already substantial. It will also be our aim to ensure that the local taxpayers of Hull, and Humberside generally, are rid of the threat of an intolerable long-term burden of debt. The bridge board is able to issue precepts to meet deficits in its accounts, but the liability to precept is not spread evenly among the local authorities of Humberside.

Sir Anthony Durant: Who appoints the bridge board? Who are the appointees?

Mr. Watts: It is appointed by the authorities and the successor authorities to those that promoted the bridge in the first place. It is a local authority bridge that is promoted by local authorities and managed by a board on their behalf.
Two small areas—Barton-upon-Humber, which is now part of Glanford, and Haltemprice, which is now part of Beverley—are liable to the current value of an old fourpenny rate. There is, however, unlimited liability for the city of Kingston upon Hull. A precept levied by the board would therefore fall mainly on the council tax payers of Hull. As I have said, if they had to meet current deficits, they would face an additional council tax charge of something in excess of £200 per taxpayer per annum in perpetuity.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend should be wearing a red outfit and a white beard today, because he is really playing the role of Father Christmas to the city of Hull, is he not? The city of Hull has the largest share of members of the board. It wanted the bridge more than anybody else. It drove the legislation through the House. There is only a small representation from the old Glanford borough council, Barton-upon-Humber urban district council and Haltemprice urban district council. The vast majority of the liability for the bridge lies in the legislation that Hull city council, more than anybody else, drove before the House. Why is my hon. Friend playing Santa Claus to the city of Hull?

Mr. Watts: I suppose it is because we are not very far from Christmas, and I would rather be in the role for which my hon. Friend suggests that I may be auditioning than the role of Scrooge. I am sure that the people of Hull will have recognised that they should be wary in future of the false Father Christmases who gave them this present, which has turned out to be such a heavy liability.
We have not ruled out precepting, and it could, for example, be a useful safety net to cope with short-term fluctuations and any special items of expenditure for a

limited time. At the end of the day, it is the board's responsibility to decide whether any deficit is best met by precepting or by tolls.
Our objective would be to encourage the bridge board to set and maintain a high but realistic level of tolls; however, it must be borne in mind that, under the current legislation, the Secretary of State has a role in considering toll applications fairly following a public inquiry. As I have said, that role could be prejudiced if he required a specific level of tolls, or if I gave an idea of what I thought that level should be.
At this stage, I cannot be specific about the proportion of debt that would be written off, and the proportion on which interest payments would be suspended. We shall need to discuss that in detail with the Treasury and the bridge board. We do not propose to write off all the debt that is not currently serviceable. Given the long time scale over which debt may be repaid, it is possible that some could be reactivated in the future, so we shall seek to write off only debt that is clearly irrecoverable for ever. We envisage that a proportion of debt not written off but on which interest payments will be suspended will provide a cushion—a safeguard for the national taxpayer against the possibility of writing off now debt that could be serviced in future.
In reaching a decision on the amount of debt owed to the Secretary of State for Transport that can be serviced, we shall have regard to a range of financial projections that reflect different estimates of traffic growth, operating and maintenance costs, inflation and interest rates. In making use of the Bill's provisions, we shall monitor the board's performance very closely.
After the initial discussions, we shall conduct major reviews of the bridge's finances at least every five years. In those reviews, we shall consider whether the existing arrangements for suspending debt need modification—for example, by reactivation of debt that has been suspended, requiring the reactivation of interest payments. My Department and the Humber Bridge Board will have a great deal of work to do to make the best use of the powers conferred by the Bill. I do not think that there should be any doubt about the need for those powers: they give my Department and the bridge board the tools that they need to sort the matter out.
I very much regret that the Bill is needed; but Conservative Administrations have always had to follow Labour Governments with a bucket and shovel.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister now answer the question that he refused to answer earlier? Will he confirm that no contracts had been let and no tenders accepted up to June 1970; that those that were accepted were accepted with the full knowledge and consent of the then Conservative Minister of Transport; and that they could not have gone ahead if a Conservative Government had not provided the money? Far from a Conservative Government having to tidy up a Labour mess—if there was a mess, an idea that I do not accept—the arrangement was countenanced and approved by a Conservative Prime Minister and Minister of Transport, and the ordure had the seal of approval.

Mr. Watts: I understand from what the hon. Gentleman has just said that the promise given on 18 January 1966 was an empty promise which the Labour Government of the day had no intention of fulfilling, and certainly did not fulfil until they were reaching the end of their term in office at the time of the 1970 general election.


The need for the Bill is a testament to the failure of the Humber bridge to meet the financial objectives originally set for it. It is a monument to false expectations of traffic growth that would finance the bridge. It may have been a bridge too far, but it was built, and we must now deal—however reluctantly—with the consequences. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Graham Allen: I do not know whether the Minister shares my sense of intruding on a family reunion, or even an old family feud. I hesitate to talk of the family feud involving the Beverley Hillbillies in the presence of the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran). Who would play the parts of Ma and Pa? I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) would fit the roles. We certainly have a sense of having been here before, although I cannot trace many debates on this subject on the Floor of the House. It seems that we will be here again, because there will be a negative order before the House. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will relish the opportunity to discuss that order, if and when it is finally put before the House.
Before we get into the Bill's nitty-gritty, it is worth putting on record the achievement of building the bridge. Mr. Roger Evans, the bridgemaster and engineer, always quotes it as
imposing proof of British engineering skill.
It is genuinely a world wonder, with two 533-ft towers, which are set almost two inches out of parallel to allow for the earth's curvature. It is the longest single-span suspension bridge in the world, although that record may soon be challenged by bridges being built elsewhere. I understand that 50 million vehicles have used the bridge since it was built. There are therefore some clear concrete, one might say, things to say about the bridge, which are worth saying to put some perspective on the debate.
The latest review that I have read of the financial position of such crossings was undertaken by the Select Committee on Transport in 1983–84. It said that only three of the 11 major estuarial crossings—the Forth, Tamar and Tay crossings—were in a position to meet their interest payments, capital amortisation and other charges. The other eight crossings failed to generate sufficient income to meet interest charges and were borrowing to meet them, thus leading to a continuing rise in outstanding debt, which amounted to £516 million.
Let us not forget that that was 10 years ago. The Committee added that the Humber bridge accounted for 40 per cent. of the total debt. This is not, therefore, a unique case, although it may be an extreme one, so I concur with the Minister's view that special reasons exist for viewing the Humber bridge in the way we do.
It is worth briefly going over the history; I do so not to provoke any challenge from colleagues who have been more intimately involved in the matter over the years. As a Labour Member of Parliament, I take my full share of the blame for the bridge's initial construction being granted in 1959. I was six years old at the time, and gladly admit to my full part in that decision, with the passing of the Humber Bridge Act 1959 and the creation of the Humber Bridge Board in 1959.
Construction, however, was not begun until 1973, during the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). At that point, the bridge and approach roads cost £98 million to build, but by the time the bridge opened, under another Conservative Government in 1981, the debt had already risen to £150 million as a result of interest charges during construction. I am sure that we are all aware of the high interest and inflation rates of the early 1970s, when Tony Barber was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Construction costs were originally estimated at £29 million. The Humber Bridge Board attributes most of that cost increase not only to high inflation rates during construction, but to the fact that the bridge took nine years to build, instead of the proposed four or five. There were, I understand, technical difficulties, labour relations problems and unusually poor weather.
The bridge's construction was funded, as the Minister has said, by way of loans from the Department of Transport and the Public Works Loans Board, which were to be repaid out of toll income, with the Humber Bridge Board being given powers under section 74 of the Humber Bridge Act to make up any deficit via rate precepts. As I have pointed out with the Select Committee on Transport's review of river crossings, it is unusual, although not unique, for a bridge to be able to pay out such money through toll revenues.
Since the bridge's opening, income from tolls and charges has been more than sufficient to cover the operating and maintenance costs, but has not created a surplus large enough to cover the interest charges. The Secretary of State for Transport and the board entered into an agreement, again referred to by the Minister, on 29 March 1972 to capitalise the interest on borrowed money for 13 years from the opening of the bridge until 1994. That has since been extended to 1999.
At the same time as agreeing that, the then Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Chope, reconfirmed that the Government intended to lift the prospect of a burden of debt falling on local Humberside taxpayers by promoting a Bill to write off or suspend debt, and instituting a five-yearly review period.
The precise amount of debt that will be written off arising from an agreement between the Government and the Humber Bridge Board will be the subject of negotiation—that much we have been told today. The Bill contains no specific amount, and we will need to revisit that when and if a negative instrument is brought before the House.

Mr. Michael Brown: As the hon. Gentleman is speaking in the name of Her Majesty's Opposition, will he say what sort of figure, between zero and £435 million, he thinks the Government should write off?

Mr. Allen: I would be happy to allow the Minister to make that decision while he remains on the Government Front Bench, and perhaps to come to a similar or dissimilar decision when we change places.
The Department of Transport has remitted part of the interest falling due since 1991–92 under the Appropriation Acts to stabilise the debt. The grant to the board was £7.6 million in 1991–92, and provision was made for £43.5 million to be repaid in 1992–93. That has stabilised the debt at around £435 million.


A number of further questions arise from the way in which the Bill has been introduced, which I hope the Minister will note and perhaps, if he speaks again in the debate, be in a position to answer.
First, is the Bill the forerunner of other Bills on other estuarial crossings? The Minister may feel that a number of other crossings merit further consideration, either by Bill or by announcements on further works or debts.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman please tell us what estuarial crossings, anywhere in Britain, arose from a political bribe, for which the electorate must now pick up a bill for £435 million?

Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman should not make such disparaging remarks about the Macmillan Government in 1959 and the Heath Government of 1971, who initially approved the bridge's construction and then approved the moneys to create the bridge. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman seeks to attack distinguished former Conservative Prime Ministers in that way. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. These conversations across the Chamber are interesting, but it would be more useful to have them outside. Let us stick to the debate on the Bill.

Mr. Allen: The second question that I should like to ask the Minister involves the level of tolls. He was a little unkind about the Humber Bridge Board and its attempts to review the tolls level. He criticised it for being slow in making proposals. Will he therefore be a little more forthcoming about whether he would be prepared to support whatever emerged from a public inquiry launched by the Humber Bridge Board, which would review the bridge toll levels being and to be paid?

Mr. Watts: I think that I made it clear that I expect the Humber Bridge Board to make proposals for updating tolls, but, as I also explained, because the decision that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport would have to make following any inquiry is a quasi-judicial one, it is not possible for me, before I have seen the board's proposals, and considered any objections to its proposals, or the public inquiry's recommendations, to give an indication in advance of what level I would think reasonable, or that I would wish my right hon. Friend to consider reasonable.

Mr. Allen: I fully accept the quasi-judicial nature of the decisions that the Minister or the Secretary of State may need to take. Perhaps he would extend that quasi-judicial caution to attacks on the Humber Bridge Board over its efforts to present proposals on tolling. If he does that, perhaps he will be seen to be even-handed in carrying out his quasi-judicial function.
My third question relates to the deregulation of the tolled river crossings. I understand that, in the past year, the Department of Transport issued a consultation document on this matter, and that it has suggested three options. The first is the continuation of the current regulation; the second is partial deregulation, with tolls rising annually to a prescribed limit, under which key groups of users would have a right to object; and the third is full deregulation, with undertakings setting their own

charges. How has that consultation gone, and how will it affect the bridge and the other river crossings in the United Kingdom?
I am sure that my suspicions about privatisation will be quickly allayed by the Minister. Is there any connection whatever between the Bill examining the debts—[Interruption.] Conservative Members seek to cast doubt on whether privatisation could follow. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee and a mere reader of newspapers, I know that cancellation or elimination of debt was followed by the privatisation of a number of industries. That happened as surely as night follows day.
It is not beyond the wit of the Government to devise ways to pour money into the open pockets of those in the private sector, and they could do that from the most unlikely starting point, which may be the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us that there is no connection, however tenuous or long term, between the Bill and privatisation.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Allen: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and he rather abused the privilege.
My final question is about roads. The Minister and his colleagues were characterised by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) as like Santa Claus. Yesterday, local authorities did not regard the Minister as Santa Claus, because he and his colleagues cut by 17 per cent. the grant to local authorities for transport needs. That cut is in addition to the cut in the Budget settlement for roads. Has the Minister any proposals to enhance the north and south road links to the bridge?
The issue of the Humber bridge comes before us every so often, and I have a feeling that this will not be the last time that we shall discuss its importance. We fully support the Bill, and wish it speedy progress.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So far, the debate has been much too low key. There is a serious scandal, in that a bribe by the Labour party for the Hull, North by-election in January 1966 is crystallised in the Bill, so that taxpayers will permanently have to pay for it. That matter should not be allowed to pass without comment. Of course, many waters have flowed since January 1966.

Mr. McNamara: Particularly under the bridge.

Mr. Jessel: Yes—and probably sleaze as well. As a matter of courtesy, I notified the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that I intended to speak in the debate and I am glad to see him here recovered from his flu. I ought to declare a sort of interest, because I was the defeated Conservative candidate in the Hull, North by-election on 25 January 1966. I feel no rancour about that because, had I got in, it is highly likely that I would have been out again by 1974, if not sooner.
My defeat paved the way for me to stand in Twickenham in 1970, and it has been a tremendous honour and privilege to represent that constituency ever


since. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North did me a good turn, because my defeat in that by-election was one of the best things that ever happened to me.
As I have said, this matter cannot pass without comment. I should have liked the Minister to comment with even more force and I shall add some comments of my own. We are supposed to be the guardians of taxpayers' money, but, as a result of that by-election bribe, taxpayers will have to pay several hundred million pounds.
It is not clear exactly how much is to be written off, but let us be in no doubt about what "writing off' means. It does not mean that the loss just disappears: it means that we have given up hope of recovering the money. But the money has gone, and £456 million has so far gone down the drain for this no doubt highly architecturally impressive, but greatly under-used bridge.
That means that £456 million less is available for our health services, education, social security, national defences or other useful purposes. It follows that people who might want to be treated sooner by the national health service, for example, have a direct interest in the fact that several hundred million pounds have been written off as a result of the bribe in that by-election.
The bribe occurred because, in the general election of October 1964, Hull, North, which was a marginal seat, was gained by the Labour party; unfortunately, the newly elected Member, Mr. Solomons, died about 13 months later, in November 1965; the by-election was fixed for two months later, but his death reduced Harold Wilson's majority from three to two; if the by-election had gone the other way, it would have been reduced to one.
At the time, there was enormous interest in the by-election. There were very big public meetings. I remember one that was addressed by the late Lord Home, at which 1,200 people were present in Hull city hall. On 18 January, Mrs. Barbara Castle, the then Transport Minister, pledged to construct the Humber bridge, and that led to the debt which is the subject of the Bill. On page 95 of the Castle memoirs, she wrote:
Off to Hull to speak in the by-election. Photographers at the station. Standing room only at meetings. I told them categorically they would have their bridge. Speech went down well.
She wrote that in her diary. The day before yesterday, I had it on the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed), who cannot be present, that he was at Mrs. Castle's meeting on 18 January 1966, that she said, "You will get your bridge," and that there were loud cheers. The Minister has already quoted the words of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, that great man lain Macleod, who referred to the plan for the Humber bridge as a pre-election bribe. He went on:
'First one of the junior Transport Ministers said that one was not needed. Then came the by-election. The same junior Minister promptly became much more enthusiastic about a new bridge.
'But the by-election continued to turn … and something more was needed. So Mrs. Castle says in Hull that … there will be a new bridge."'
Mr. Macleod was quoted as saying that in The Times on 22 January 1966.
Anyone could predict—and many people did at the time—that the bridge would never pay. If the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) drove from Nottingham to Hull, regardless of whether he used

the M1 or the A614, he would go along the motorway that skirts the southern side of Doncaster. The shortest way from there to Hull—well, the quickest way—is by using the M62 and not to go south of the Humber and then across the Humber bridge. With a toll, it will be more expensive as well as slower. From looking at the map, one sees that there are no large cities to the south of Hull.

Mr. Elliot Morley: As someone who regularly drives from Scunthorpe, which is not very far from the Humber bridge, to London, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is 177 miles exactly from Scunthorpe to Westminster via the A1. It is 200 miles via the M62 and the M1 . The route is shorter and saves money to go south to London, crossing the bridge at Hull, contrary to what he is saying.

Mr. Jessel: But one would have to pay to go across the bridge. Across Lincolnshire, one would travel a long way along A-class roads, which are not of dual-carriageway standard on the whole. Therefore, although it is a squeak shorter, it is slower. That is why the Humber bridge will never pay. The losses on it are absolutely enormous.
I accept that one cannot put the whole of the cost of the bridge on the people of Hull.

Mr. Michael Brown: Why not?

Mr. Jessel: Because it has escalated with accumulated interest to between £400 million and £500 million, and would cost every man, woman and child in the city of Hull about £2,000. The interest on it is not far short of £200 a year a head. It would therefore be impossible to put all that on the ordinary householders in Hull without it having a large impact on their welfare. The cost is so vast that it is simply too much now for them to pay.
I do not see why, however, beyond what comes in in tolls, the whole of the rest of the cost should be shouldered by the national taxpayers, who are thereby being made to pay for the Labour party's by-election bribe. A token amount ought to be borne by the council tax of Hull city council—perhaps only 1, 2 or 3 per cent. of it—just so that people are reminded of the expense that was incurred in their name. Perhaps the Bill could be amended so that part of the cost was attributable by law to be paid by the Labour party via Transport house. It would thereby have to pay part of the cost of the bribe with which it sought to distort the decision of the electors of Hull.

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend makes an intriguing suggestion, but I fear that it would probably hybridise the Bill.

Mr. Jessel: Where there's a will, there's a way. It could be done if the House really wanted it to be done. Indeed, I hope to have some support from my hon. Friends in wanting it to happen.
We cannot go on letting Opposition Members bribe their way through elections when the cost of their bribe comes to 12 times the figure of £29 million in the 1960s, as stated by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. Labour Members should be made to pay a part of the cost of the bridge, and we should remind them of it day in, day out, week in, week out and month in, month out, for the rest of next year, so that the whole country can see what they are up to.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am very pleased that the Government are introducing this important Bill. I support the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). Whatever chaff goes from one side of the House to the other, we should realise that we are talking about one of the most stupendous examples of civil engineering in Europe, which is of enormous credit to British builders, designers and workmen. It was built on the most difficult terrain over a very wide estuary.
The building of the bridge was delayed because of problems on the south bank of the river—in a Tory constituency, but I do not hold that against the hon. Member responsible—when the south towers were being built. In addition, it is one of two very important bridges in the area. There are two great examples of civil engineering; the other is the bridge over the River Ouse. It was built on a bog, it has no bottom, it carries the M62 and has no toll at all.
The point that we should be addressing is what is the difference in principle between part of our transport infrastructure—the M62 bridge, a great engineering feat in itself—which carries no toll, and the Humber bridge? That is of the utmost importance.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On that point—

Mr. McNamara: I shall not give way. I will let the young man chat later.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said that the bridge was the crystallisation of a bribe. I must make a confession to the House. I did not know on the night that Barbara Castle was going to make that statement. The advice that I gave throughout the campaign had been, "Don't. You don't need to."
In many ways the campaign for the bridge at that time was media-led by the Hull Daily Mail. The demand for the bridge emanated from that newspaper, which had long campaigned for it. It saw a Government whom it felt might be vulnerable on that point, and led a very strong and powerful campaign for the bridge. I salute those at the paper for their effort, especially Charles Levitt, who was political correspondent at the time. Mr. Levitt was in fact—and still is, I understand—a Liberal.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) that it is outrageous that private money had to fund the building of the bridge to Skye. The tolls that are to be levied make it even worse. There should not be any tolls.
The campaign for the Humber bridge was media-led, as I have said. Indeed, I have been since told by those who conducted in-depth polls at the time among groups of people who discussed such things, that the Humber bridge scarcely appeared in the list of priorities of people in the Kingston upon Hull, North constituency who were seeking to re-elect a Labour Member of Parliament.
I turn to the history of the bridge and the myths surrounding it, especially those that have been put forward by the hon. Member for Twickenham. He says that he is

grateful that I beat him and thereby enabled him to get his seat in Twickenham. I do not think that the people of Twickenham are particularly happy about it, since over the years his majority has gone down—he might well be out next time—whereas, on the contrary, mine has gone up and up. The hon. Gentleman said that the bridge crystallised the bribe, but let us consider the situation.
In 1959, a private Member's Bill was introduced with the approval of the then Conservative Government to establish the bridge board. In 1965, the House debated the Humber bridge and some of us listened from the Gallery. The Minister of Transport—the late Stephen Swingler, a very fine man—poured cold water on the idea and wished that my former colleague the late Mr. James Johnson had not introduced it.
We then had a campaign in Hull, which Lady Castle attended. Her words at the meeting in Lambert Street school were:
When the planning is completed, then you will have your bridge.
I did not attend that meeting because I was at a meeting at Endyke school. In those days, great election meetings were held.
Ian Macleod, to whom the hon. Member for Twickenham referred, was Chancellor of the Exchequer for part of the time when the Conservative Government gave the go-ahead, allowed the contracts and tenders to go out and voted the money, and the noble Lord Peyton was Minister of Transport. They could have stopped the building of the bridge. I understand that the Tories' complaint is that the Conservative Government fulfilled a Labour election promise. I wish that the Tories would keep some of their own promises, too, such as lowering taxation. The issue is that the building of the bridge was agreed then.

Mr. Michael Brown: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. I do not dispute the fact that the bridge was given the "go-ahead" in 1971 following Lady Castle's commitment in 1966, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the then Conservative Government made it clear that they were not giving but lending money? I have the copy of Hansard before me that shows that.

Mr. McNamara: Yes, but the building of the bridge could not have gone ahead had the money not been lent. The hon. Gentleman has said far more than the Minister of State was prepared to admit. He dodged the question every time that I asked it, and it is important that the House knows the answer.
The original cost was to be £19 million. By 1973, after two years of Barber and hyperinflation, it had risen to £35 million. It was escalating all the time that the Tories were in power because of their inability to control interest rates and inflation. Those are the reasons for the debt and people should be prepared to accept that. I do not blame the Tories for it completely. I blame them only for winning the 1970 election; otherwise sound finance under the then Mr. Jenkins would have continued. The only thing to his credit is that he was a successful Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Last week, the hon. Member for Twickenham said:
As to next Wednesday's debate on the Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill, I was the defeated Conservative candidate in the Hull, North by-election in January 1966, nearly 30 years ago.


He went on to ask:
Will there be time in Wednesday's debate for us to discuss whether the amount—nearly £500 million—should be charged to the Labour party and not to the unfortunate taxpayer, as a consequence of Labour's disgraceful electoral bribe?"—[Official Report, 14 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1105.]
Everything that the hon. Gentleman said in the House last Thursday and today was incorrect, apart from the fact that he was a defeated Conservative candidate in 1966.
My constituents and the area have benefited from the Humber bridge.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: So have you.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman says that I have benefited. All the polls at that time showed that my constituents regarded the Humber bridge as a less important issue in the by-election than the media made it out to be. I do not hesitate in saying that I welcome the bridge and every hon. Member should be proud of it. It has the additional merit of joining Yorkshire with Lincolnshire and thus bringing the opportunity of civilisation to Lincolnshire. We should be happy about that, too.
But for the almighty debt, the bridge has an operating surplus. It can pay its maintenance costs of £1.7 million to £2 million a year and make a profit, but the debt is dragging it down. The debt has arisen because of what has happened over time. I do not seek to blame the debt entirely on the Conservatives; I simply ask them not to shirk their part of the responsibility for what has happened. We can then all join in welcoming the Bill.

Mr. John Hutton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This afternoon, I learned that the Ministry of Defence has decided to award a contract for the design and building of up to three Trafalgar-class submarines to a team led by GEC-Marconi in preference to a bid by Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. in my constituency. The total value of the contract exceeds £2.5 billion.
Involvement in the contract is essential for the future of VSEL and the jobs of thousands of my constituents. The Government's decision today will, at the very least, create unwelcome uncertainty about the future of VSEL, where nearly 10,000 jobs have already been lost—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for the Chair?

Mr. Hutton: The fact that no statement has been made in the House on that major contract is an insult to my constituents and denies me an opportunity to raise my concerns about the contract in the House. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, received a request from a Minister of the Crown to make a statement to the House about that major contract decision?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware of an intention to make such a statement. This is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is aware that there are other avenues that he can take to air his concerns.

Mr. John Spellar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Spellar: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have now ruled on that point of order. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise a point of order further to a point of order on which I have ruled. Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Spellar: It is a different aspect of that point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I shall listen to it.

Mr. Spellar: Is it not a great discourtesy to the House and individual Members that, at this late stage, just before the Christmas recess, that announcement has been sneaked out and therefore—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking advantage. I have already ruled on that matter and told the hon. Gentleman so. He assured me that his was a different point of order. It was not. I call Mr. Michael Brown.

Mr. Michael Brown: We have had an interesting and entertaining afternoon, being reminded what used to go on in politics in the 1960s, when Labour was in power and trying to cling on to power. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) were protagonists in the events of January and February 1966, when I was 14 years old. I recall the night of the sad defeat of my hon. Friend and the election of the hon. Gentleman. I remember staying up and listening to the wireless—we did not have a television in my home in those days—because I was interested in politics and knew that, if Mr. Wilson succeeded in holding that seat, there would probably be a general election and a Labour win. I was anxious that that should not happen. I remember the events from the perspective of a boy still at school. Little did I realise that, 15 years later in 1981, I would welcome Her Majesty the Queen to my constituency when she was the first person to drive over the Humber bridge.
I do not dissent from what the hon. Members for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and for Kingston upon Hull, North said: the bridge is a magnificent sight. I can see it from where I live some eight miles away in Ulceby. It is wonderful. It looks good. And so it jolly well should when we consider how much it has cost for one reason or another.
Let us not get away from the fact that the bridge was not proposed by the Labour Government until a by-election occurred. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham told the House that the first intimation of a Government go-ahead came at the point of a critical by-election. The Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill should indeed be sent as an election expenses bill to the Labour


party, if not to the agent for the Kingston upon Hull, North constituency Labour party. I am prepared to put the burden on Walworth road, rather than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McNamara: If the hon. Gentleman is going to send the bill to my agent, we are not certain where it should go, but I am sure that he would give him the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Brown: In that case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham proposed, there should be a clause suggesting that part of the bill should go to Walworth road. I accept that we would then have a hybrid Bill that would suffer all the difficulties that the Humber Bridge Bill—a private Bill—suffered the year before last.
My hon. Friend the Minister has come here as Santa Claus on behalf of the British taxpayer. My constituents and I will benefit from this wonderful deliverance, which other hon. Members on both sides of the House are going to give us by supporting the Bill. Why should I object to the possibility of up to £435 million of taxpayers' money being spent, which may rule out a bypass in Twickenham, north Kent or anywhere else? I have an interest to declare—that of my constituents. I cannot believe their luck; they are to have the privilege of the Bill.

Mr. Allen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is very generous. Although, like myself, he was probably still a small child in short trousers at the time, can he tell us why the Conservative Government gave a fair wind to the Humber Bridge Act 1959 and to the creation of the board?

Mr. Brown: Yes, I can easily do so. When I was still having to be convinced of the merits of the Bill, I got a copy of the Humber Bridge Act 1959 and I have here all the yellowing pages of the proceedings. It was a private Bill and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Governments usually do not take sides on private Bills. There was no debate in the House of Commons on any of the Readings, which all occurred after Prayers and before the start of public business.
Presumably, the Government had no problem with the 1959 Act because not a penny piece of taxpayers' money was involved in that Act, which is now on the statute book. I presume that the Macmillan Government took the view that, because section 77 of the Act states that, in the event of any unpaid debt being outstanding to the Secretary of State for Transport, the corporation of the city of Hull and the urban district councils of Beverley and Barton-upon-Humber would pay back every penny, there would be no taxpayers' involvement and, for that reason, they allowed the legislation to go through.
I expect that the hon. Gentleman will want to turn to the Humber Bridge Act 1971, when the Tories were in power again, and ask the same question. Why did they allow the 1971 Act to go through without objecting to it? For the same reason. Because that Act of Parliament also made it absolutely clear that, despite all the powers sought by the Humber Bridge Board, there would not be one penny piece of taxpayers' money for the venture. All the taxpayers' money that was to be lent to the Humber Bridge Board would be repaid to the Secretary of State. That is why neither Conservative Government of 1959 or of 1971 had any objections to those Acts.
It has been patently obvious to those of us who have had anything to do with politics and with the debate surrounding the Humber bridge in the past 10 years and, indeed, since the day it opened—to all of us locally, whether Labour or Conservative Members of Parliament, whether from North Lincolnshire or the East Riding of Yorkshire, or from what will be called Humberside for just three more months until next April—that the traffic that was forecast in the 1960s and 1970s and that justified the repayment of the debt, would not materialise.
If the Minister wants to take full advantage of the legislation that is available to him on the statute book, a mechanism is available. My hon. Friend did not need to come here today. In future, when bodies come to this House—be they local authorities or private organisations—with private legislation and make it clear that there are no financial implications for the taxpayer, we have to be much more careful about the viability of the projects involved.
In 1959 and 1971, the House was clearly somewhat tardy in considering those pieces of private legislation. In the past 10 years, it has been patently obvious to all concerned that none of those provisions could be achieved. If my hon. Friend the Minister wanted to do nothing, he could empower the local authorities, through the Humber Bridge Board, to take the necessary action under those Acts of Parliament, which would bankrupt the city of Hull.
No Labour Member has any cause to be critical of my hon. Friend the Minister. The only people who might be critical are Conservative colleagues who might yesterday have been reflecting with sadness on the announcements relating to capital programmes throughout the country made by the Department of Transport. At the end of the day, my hon. Friend has to take this money out of his Department's budget—with Treasury approval. He is to be congratulated by everyone on Labour Benches. In so far as there is any criticism, it is likely to come from the Conservative Benches.
Locally, we recognise that the bridge is wonderful, but the blunt truth is that there are not the traffic figures to justify it. What concerns me about the possibility of an increase in the tolls is that some of my constituents have to use the bridge, whether they like it or not. If one has a heart attack or a brain tumour in my constituency, one has to go to Hull hospital and one has to use the bridge. We do not have the option of going to Grimsby, Scunthorpe or Lincoln hospitals. If one suffers from certain diseases, the health authority requires one to cross that bridge.
I am concerned that there is no price on the face of the Bill to show the extent to which the Department will wipe off the irrecoverable amounts, because I want to know what the balance will be between toll increases and the amount of debt that the Minister says is irrecoverable. For those of my constituents who have no choice but to use the bridge, the level of the toll is very important. I accept that the Humber Bridge Board has been tardy since 1989, in not seeking to be responsible for making regular increases in line with inflation. Unfortunately, to the ordinary citizen in my constituency faced with paying £1.60, an increase in the toll to £2 or £2.50 will seem a massive hike.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is not trying to change the system whereby my constituents and I can go to a public inquiry to present our case in the event of


the board increasingly the toll unreasonably. In 1989, I attended the public inquiry and gave evidence on behalf of my constituents.
I acknowledge that the bridge is a convenience for many people, including my constituents who choose to work in Hull rather than in Grimsby, Lincoln or Scunthorpe. They choose to take advantage of the bridge and they gain the benefits of travelling shorter distances and saving time. That is an economic choice that they must make. Those of my constituents who, while the county of Humberside remains, have to go to county hall to transact business, have no option but to use the bridge.
I hope that many of my constituents will not have to use the bridge so often after 1 April, when the local authority boundaries will be changed, Humberside will be expunged as a local government authority and we shall have, instead, North Lincolnshire and North-East Lincolnshire. But at present, some people have no option but to use the bridge and they look to their Member of Parliament to be able to attend the public inquiries to put their case. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is not seeking to alter that system—at least for now—although, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North said, consultation proposals are being discussed about the future of toll crossings.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North suggested that if all the debt was wiped off, privatisation would be terrible. If I were the shadow Chancellor and somebody said to me, "Is there no debt left on the bridge because of that wonderful Minister whom the Tories had? I understand that you are against privatisation, but I should like to buy and operate that bridge," I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as shadow Chancellor, I would jump at the offer like a shot. There will be no such offer because I do not accept—as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said earlier—that, if the debt is wiped off, the traffic will justify the operation of the bridge. Some sort of support system will always be needed, if not from the general taxpayer, certainly from the local authorities.
The local authorities have a part to play, and the Humber Bridge Board will have to be much more imaginative than it has been. I regret that the Humber Bridge Board has not increased toll traffic using the bridge by introducing a more imaginative discounted ticket scheme. Many of my constituents would be prepared to use the bridge more often if there were discounts on some occasions.
There are leisure opportunities, including the leisure centre, on the north bank. My constituents pay council tax to support the leisure centre, the Hull ice arena—they are shareholders in it—but they do not use it because they have to pay a toll to travel over the bridge. If the board were prepared to introduce a system of discounted tickets at weekends to encourage greater use of the bridge, it could generate more income. The board is trapped in a local authority style and has not shown imagination in trying to make more of the circumstances.
The bridge exists; in retrospect, if the Governments of either 1966 or 1971 had known what the future would bring in terms of the national motorway network, neither of them would have gone ahead with such a proposal. If there were no Humber bridge today, I cannot believe that either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the shadow

Chancellor would go ahead with such a proposal. But the bridge exists and, short of knocking it down, we can do nothing but make something of it.
We obviously have to do something about the problem of increasing debt. I am aware that my constituents benefit to a considerable extent from the revenues of the rest of the taxpayers. The bridge is surrounded by far too much politics and does not have enough to do with the local economy. I accept that there has been some economic investment around the area, both north and south, which might have been partly due to the good communications in the area generally. But I do not believe that when expanding industries come to my constituency, as dozens of them do, they want to locate their factories there because of the Humber bridge. They locate their factories in my constituency because of the national motorway network, the airport, the skilled labour, the good industrial relations and for a host of other reasons. The bridge is certainly part of the local infrastructure and will be there for ever; we cannot let it fall into disrepair.
The Humber Bridge Board must recognise that it has failed in its attempts to increase the tolls in a sensible way, in line with inflation. If we are not careful, we shall face a gigantic increase in tolls that will cost some of my constituents far too much. I press my hon. Friend the Minister—if not today, when the order comes before the House—to say precisely how much of the £435 million will be irrecoverable. I appreciate that he cannot tell me today.
I also want to press my hon. Friend the Minister and the board on the precise toll figure that we can expect. We could fall into a terrible trap: if the toll is increased too much, many of my constituents who have the opportunity not to use the bridge will decide not to work in Hull as it is not worth their while because of the costs of travelling over the bridge. They may decide that it is better for them to take a job with lower wages in Lincoln, Scunthorpe or Grimsby, because after they have paid their return tolls, they may have spent £40 or £50 a week. We could find ourselves in a spiral of decline and the debt could begin to increase again.
The Government and the Humber Bridge Board must be careful: if they decide to let the local user pay as much as possible and to milk the local user with no option but to use the bridge, they may find that local users—other than those poor people who have no choice but to use Hull hospital—will make alternative arrangements. The Government and the board must be wary of a dramatic leap in the toll rate.
We are now just four or five days from Christmas and my hon. Friend the Minister has come here as Santa Claus. If I did not represent Brigg and Cleethorpes as a Conservative Member, but represented another constituency elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and if I had not been able to obtain a bypass for my constituents, I would probably vote against the Bill. However, I shall certainly support the Bill today.

Mr. Stuart Randall: Much of today's Second Reading debate has involved the history of the Humber bridge. As we are near Christmas, I shall let the House into a little secret: at the back end of 1981, when I was selected to represent Kingston upon Hull, West, I was given some advice before I attended the selection meeting. I was told to mention the Humber bridge because the people of the area were proud of it. I do not think that that tip swung


the contest my way—I won it with a great landslide—but I record the incident as it reveals people's attitude towards the Humber bridge then.
I shall not stray too far back into the history except to say that, before the 1966 by-election in Kingston upon Hull, North, there had been much discussion for many years about modernising the Humber crossing. It would be outrageous for the House even to suggest that we—a major industrial country—should have retained a ferry crossing at one of our most important estuaries.
After the boundary changes, my new constituency border will probably be within a mile of the Humber bridge. The area that I represent—I say this as a worried person—has a lot of economic and social deprivation, and we need to modernise. We need a mechanism to improve the development of the area and to gain economically and socially.
The bridge itself is a fine piece of work. I have always regarded the Minister as a competent person, but I will not follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in describing him as Father Christmas. We do not know whether he will be Father Christmas, because we do not know the figures. Until we know, we shall not be able to respond to the very uncharacteristic comments by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) that the cost should be dumped on to the people of Hull. That kind of comment is not very becoming just before Christmas.
Funding is at the heart of the matter. The project escalated in price because it was advanced, there were problems with subsidence on the south side of the river, and there were changes in the specification. However, the funding of the project was based on loans, at a time of high inflation and when interest rates were very high. The system of funding for that magnificent project was not viable. There was no possibility, in the economic circumstances that prevailed at that time, that the project could be viable.
I welcome the Bill in principle, because I believe that it will offload much of the debt that is interest-rate linked and will enable the books to be balanced. That is just plain common sense. The Bill will be good for Hull, as long as there is no massive offloading of the financial problems on to the people of Kingston upon Hull, West, which will include Hessle under the boundary changes.
The escalation in cost was horrific. My figures show that in 1970, the cost was £19 million; that rose to £35 million; to £67 million; to £98 million; and finally to £151 million. Those figures are horrific, but we had huge inflation rates at the time—11 per cent. for a long time. We were also capitalising the debt, which resulted in the loan rising as it has.
Traffic levels have been acceptable. Some people say that the bridge is not used, and hon. Members have said that today. That is absurd. The bridge is used extensively. The problem of financial viability is not related directly to the traffic. The mismatch between the debt arising from the interest rates and the income from the tolls is so great that it is impossible to solve the problem from the tolls. The Minister's speech alluded to that.
The main problem has been the Government's inaction. It is clear that the funding arrangements were not viable, and I regret that we have not taken action sooner. There

has been a regrettable amount of procrastination. I also regret that the Humber Bridge Board was not aware that the Bill was going to be published. The board had no forewarning of the Bill, and in May it decided to increase the tolls by 32.5 per cent. to try to balance the books.
I wish to ask the Minister about privatisation. There is rumour whizzing around that the Bill is part of a devious scheme to prepare the ground, and to get rid of the debt so that the project can be become viable and ready for privatisation. I would also like to know more about the deregulation. At the moment, the bridge board has powers, but are there plans to change the system of regulation to total deregulation? Specifically, is there a plan to allow the tolls to be changed at any time rather than annually? An answer to that would be helpful.
I have focused on viability, and the failure to get to grips with the financial arrangements. The debt is now running at the stupid and absurd figure of £439 million. That is the latest figure I have. It is unacceptable to allow that to continue. As I said earlier, the interest charges on the long-term money have gone up by £50 million per annum. The toll income is about £10 million, of which about £1.75 million is used in operational costs. We are a long way from achieving balance in the books, so I welcome in principle the idea that at last we shall wipe out some of the debt.
We must make the Humber bridge operate viably, because that is important for economic regeneration. We do not want high tolls, because they stifle use, and that is wrong. Many man hours and years have been spent tackling the problem of debt, and nobody likes that. I hope that, when my constituents ask me whether the Minister will be a Father Christmas, I can say that I think he will. However, we need to see the impact on the council tax payers in Hull. I hope that the Bill will be good news.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Earlier this afternoon, at the request of the Labour Opposition, we spent 42 minutes on allegations of sleaze against a public official—the director general of Oflot, Peter Davis. He was accused because he had tried to save the taxpayer the cost of his travelling expenses on official business. There was a busy House then, but look at the House now. This debate is about perhaps the biggest political sleaze scandal of all time.
We are being asked to write off £435 million because of a political and electoral bribe by the Labour party some 30 years ago. Let us be clear what that was about. In the other place, when he was replying for the Labour Government, Lord Lindgren said about the Humber bridge:
at the present time our limited resources do not allow us to give construction of such a bridge the highest priority."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 November 1965: Vol. 270, c. 1136]
Yet two months later, the then Minister, Mrs. Barbara Castle, made it clear in her diaries, which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) so aptly quoted, that the Labour Government intended to offer a clear electoral bribe. She wrote in her diary:
Off to Hull to speak in the by-election: photographers at station, standing room only at meetings. I told them categorically that, as soon as the development plan was decided for Humberside, they would have their bridge. Speeches went down well.
I bet they did.


I have been absolutely amazed, and perhaps have felt a tinge of admiration, at the brass face of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who has been the beneficiary of what is perhaps the biggest political bribe in history. The cost of it is far more than his own weight in gold. The taxpayers have paid for that gold. The hon. Gentleman has stood up today, however, and said it was quite wrong to set tolls on the bridge in the first place. We are passing on to the taxpayer a debt of £435 million, but he now wants to pass on even more debt. He is about to get up and tell us how much the debt would be if no tolls had been set.

Mr. McNamara: I just want to ask the hon. Gentleman what proportion of the development costs of Concorde were written off in order to make it a suitable object for Lord King and privatisation. What about the debts of British Steel, British Rail and all the other debts that have been wiped out to enable the hon. Gentleman and his friends in the City to line their pockets from privatisations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to stop this once and for all. It serves no useful purpose in a debate to exchange insulting remarks across the Chamber. Responsible and good debate can well do without insulting personal remarks, whoever they come from and whoever they are aimed at. I hope that we will not hear any more insults.

Mr. Arnold: I do not recall a by-election at Heathrow, east or west or north. I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not even try to quantify the cost to the taxpayer had no tolls been set for 30 years. Now we are being asked to pass on to the taxpayer a debt of £435 million.
I noticed earlier that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North accused Peter Davis of sleaze because his wife and the wife of an American business man had been friends for 20 years. The hon. Gentleman has been friends with the bridge for 30 years because it started his political career.
The brass face of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is exceeded only by the contemptuous dismissal of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who has not even bothered to turn up. He is usually ready to throw around wild allegations of sleaze, but when the Labour party is on the receiving end of such allegations, he is not here. Perhaps that is a commentary on how any future Labour Government would deal with difficult questions.
Was the bridge an electoral bribe or was it not? The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North denied that the project had any electoral impact, but the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) well and truly let the cat out of the bag when he said that at his first election to the western division of Hull his agent said, "Don't forget to mention the bridge. It will go down awfully well."

Mr. Randall: It is important for me to clarify the matter. I was advised that the people of our area are very proud of the bridge. That is perfectly reasonable. That pride has nothing to do with bribery.

Mr. Arnold: If they are delighted with the bridge, obviously they are delighted with the people who ran up the bill, which everyone is now having to settle, including my constituents in Kent.
The people of north-west Kent particularly resent paying that bill because for many years our roads by the two Dartford tunnels were clogged up every morning. We waited and we waited, but the Labour Government never gave us a Dartford bridge to solve our problems. Perhaps it was because we did not have a by-election in the immediate vicinity. We had to wait for a Conservative Government to introduce a scheme to raise private investment to build a far more beautiful bridge than the Humber bridge, the Queen Elizabeth II bridge on the Thames. My constituents resent paying a proportion of the Humber bridge debt.
When my hon. Friend the Minister finally works out on whom the enormous debt will land, I hope he ensures that the city of Hull jolly well pays a considerable proportion of it. Let the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, who was a beneficiary of the bridge, explain that to the people of Hull.
I must confess that I felt a certain amount of irritation throughout my hon. Friend the Minister's speech. I sometimes think the Government commit the cardinal sin of being too responsible. They work out the accounts of our country far too responsibly. If a bill is run up, and is then to be written off, I would prefer it if my hon. Friend came to the Dispatch Box, put the Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill on it and said to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, "I propose this formally, and I expect the people who incurred the debt of £435 million to stand at the Dispatch Box and justify why we should impose that enormous debt on the people of this country."

Mr. Watts: I am not quite ready to change places with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Arnold: That was not my point. As a Minister, my hon. Friend had to draft the Bill—he acted responsibly—but the Opposition incurred the debt for the British public and they should come to the Dispatch Box to justify it.
The speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Opposition spokesman, was uncharacteristically subdued, as well it might be. He was quite happy to shelter under the skirts of the Minister and let my hon. Friend bear the weight of explaining the Bill's purpose.
Who were the beneficiaries of the Humber bridge project? The answer is the Labour party. Where is it today? There is not a single Labour Member here other than those from the immediate vicinity of the bridge, and what a lot of apologies we have heard from them.
Our taxpayers have been treated with contempt. One does not need to raise one's eyes particularly high to notice that the press do not seem to give a damn about the taxpayer either.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was right when he said that the £435 million is coming out of the capital programme of the Department of Transport. Many of us were in the Chamber yesterday to discover what will become of our capital programmes, and the allocations for them were far lower than we might otherwise have hoped. My constituents in Gravesham did not get their Northfleet bypass. I can blame the Labour-Liberal council for making that a secondary priority, but—

Mr. Allen: It is because the Government grant is down 17 per cent.

Mr. Arnold: I note that sedentary intervention from the Opposition spokesman. I wonder whether the


hon. Gentleman knows that 17 per cent. is part of the impact of swallowing £435 million in one go. Has he quantified that? It is disgraceful that because of the Labour party's political sleaze taxpayers across the country will have to foot a bill of £435 million.

Mr. Allen: Let me just reply to the hon. Gentleman's tirade. If he continues to support ever-larger tax cuts in the basic rate of income tax—taxes are increased in other areas—he must accept that that money must be found from somewhere. Yesterday's announcement of a 17 per cent. reduction in local transport projects, which are funded by central Government, must be found from some source. Of course the hon. Gentleman cannot disguise that fact. He cannot have his cake and eat it. If he votes for reductions in income tax, I am afraid that he must realise that they need to be paid for.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The problem may have been solved, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) says that he had sat down.

Mr. Allen: No, he gave way.

Mr. Arnold: No, I did not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair was under the impression that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) had given way. However, the Chair was deceived as the hon. Gentleman had sat down.

Mr. Elliot Morley: During this very interesting debate we have explored the history of the Humber bridge and people's attitudes to it. However, the hon. Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) are on very dangerous ground when they comment on the cost of the Humber bridge. In response, we can easily ask: what about the poll tax and the £3 billion that was wasted on it? Will that cost be borne by the Conservative party?
If the same rules applied to local government, Conservative Members would face surcharges for the poll tax and for selling public assets at below their book value as election bribes. They would he surcharged for the give-away Budgets in the 1980s, which caused tremendous damage to industry and to this country's economy. Conservative Members are in no position to talk about the Humber bridge. The hon. Member for Gravesham talked about brass necks, but we have seen brass cheek from Conservative Members in this debate.
Let us return to the issue of the Humber bridge and the importance of it. To be fair, hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned the tremendous engineering achievement that the bridge represents and to the pride that local people take in it. The bridge is a wonderful showcase for British engineering and the engineering industry has benefited from that experience. It has gone on to build bridges abroad, which has had a beneficial impact on our exports and on British Steel, in which I have an interest.
There is also the question of need. I have no doubt that the Humber bridge meets a vital infrastructure need in Humberside. Without the bridge, Humberside's economic

development would have been constrained. I remember what it was like before the bridge was built. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) referred to the ferry service. Although it was a very inefficient service, I used it regularly. As a student, I did teaching practice in Cleethorpes in the winter—the digs in Cleethorpes were very cheap in winter—and I would catch the ferry every Monday morning. In those days, the journey across the Humber was a long and complicated affair, but many people made the journey even then. Many of them hoped that the ferry would run aground in the middle of the river, as it often did, so that the bar would be open for a few hours before the ferry eventually reached Barton-upon-Humber.
The construction of the bridge reduced the 100-mile journey between Grimsby and Hull to a convenient, short crossing and it allowed the economy to develop on both sides of the Humber. I am surprised that hon. Members who have spoken in the debate—particularly the Minister for Railways and Roads—did not refer to the haulage industry and the importance of the Humber bridge to it. The introduction of tolls has had a major impact on the haulage industry. Has the Minister met representatives of the Road Haulage Association recently? I have met them to discuss their concerns about the impact of tolls on their members in my constituency.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) mentioned the impact of the Humber bridge on his constituency. We have very good communications and an airport in the area, but when I talk to people in South Humberside, including some very large investors, they all emphasise the fact that the Humber bridge provides access to the deep-water ports of Hull and the daily roll-on, roll-off ferries to Holland. That is very important to many local businesses. The Humber bridge is a vital part of the local infrastructure.
There is no denying that the Humber bridge has not been able to cover its debt. It was never going to, and in that respect the Government have recognised the inevitable and introduced the Bill to deal with that debt. Labour Members welcome the legislation as a recognition of the real situation, as the problem can by solved only by writing off the debt in that way.
As to the cost of the Humber bridge, I draw the House's attention to the cost of other road developments, which will not be recovered. One development that springs to mind is the recent Limehouse link construction in north London. The construction of the road link tunnel cost £360 million and it cost a further £89.2 million to relocate people whose houses were demolished to make way for the link. The Limehouse link—a road of only 1.8 km—cost the taxpayer a total of £449.2 million.
Tonight we are talking about a total debt of £435 million for the Humber bridge. The cost of the Limehouse link at only 1.8 km is far more than the debt that we are talking about in this debate. The Humber bridge will continue to contribute towards its cost through its tolls, while the Limehouse link will have no such tolls and is part of the national road network.
Many of my constituents are confused by that logic. They ask why such a big fuss is made about the Humber bridge when the motorway network—including the Limehouse link—is simply regarded as part of infrastructure investment in this country, although it is just as costly. Let us put the debate into perspective. Yes, we


are writing off debt on the Humber bridge; I believe that we are correct to do so. The Humber bridge is an important piece of infrastructure and its cost pales into insignificance when compared with other major road and communications infrastructure investments in this country.
I echo some of the comments of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes regarding the people of Humberside. My constituents have no choice but to use the bridge regularly, particularly when travelling to Hull royal infirmary. The infirmary provides medical treatment that is not available in any other part of the region. The only other hospital is at Cottingham. When people are hospitalised at the infirmary, their relatives must travel across the Humber bridge regularly and the costs can be very high. People who live and work on different sides of the Humber must also bear that cost.
I was such a person. When I was selected to contest the Glanford and Scunthorpe seat in 1985, I travelled across the bridge daily. My family moved to Winterton and I travelled to work in Hull each day. My wife and I had to pay the toll daily, and sometimes twice a day.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Limehouse link. A proportion of the cost of that link was paid for by the developers of Canary wharf. Will he inform the House what contribution he believes the city of Hull should make to the cost of the Humber bridge?

Mr. Morley: I have read the Public Accounts Committee's report on the Limehouse link and it does not mention any contribution by developers towards its cost. It says that the link was commissioned by the London Docklands development corporation, which was established as a non-executive body by the Department of the Environment. As far as I know, the bulk of the money came from taxpayers. Even if there was a contribution from the private sector, it was still a major investment by the public sector. There is no toll on that road and none is expected to be introduced. Many people who use the Limehouse link to travel to work in the City are in a much better position to pay tolls than many of my constituents in Glanford and Scunthorpe—or those in Brigg and Cleethorpes, for that matter. We should put the matter in perspective.
I commuted to work via the Humber bridge for some years; I made that choice. I once remarked to the former chairman of the bridge board, Councillor Alex Clarke, that I had crossed the bridge so many times that I must have paid for part of it. I asked whether my name could be written on it and he replied that, given the escalation in debt, in all my daily journeys I may have paid for only one rivet in the bridge. He said that I could put my name on that if I wanted to. That puts in perspective the escalation of debt, which is dealt with under the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will give some assurances about future tolls. It is not good enough for him to say that it is purely a matter for the bridge board. We all know that tolls will be determined by how much debt the Government are prepared to write off under the powers that they are taking in the Bill. The private Bill that the Government were blackmailing the bridge board to introduce would have proposed that no public inquiries be held. I am glad that there is no such suggestion now as local people have a right to make representations about toll increases.
It was also clear from the discussions that the Government wanted that private Bill to include the automatic index-linking of tolls. That would put an intolerable burden on people who use the bridge because they have no choice. Some people have to use the bridge as a direct result of Government policy—for example, the location of health care facilities. They have no option but to cross the bridge and pay the tolls. There must be some consideration for such people's needs and the impact on them.
There must also be consideration for local businesses—the Minister failed to mention them in his opening remarks—and the impact of tolls on lorry companies and local distribution businesses with bases on both sides of the bridge. A sharp increase in tolls would put an intolerable burden on their profitability. That has to be taken into account.
The Minister said that he could not tell the House what the tolls would be, but it would be useful if he gave us an assurance that whatever the increase was, it would be within reasonable limits—perhaps the level of inflation. I would be interested to hear the Minister's opinions on that.
The Minister has been described as a Father Christmas figure as he is writing off the debt. If we have no idea of what future tolls will be, he will not be a Father Christmas figure but the ghost of Christmas yet to come and we should remember that that ghost foreshadowed some unpleasant consequences and implications. There will be unpleasant implications in the Bill unless the Minister ensures that any future increase in tolls is reasonable for the people whom it will hit.

Mr. Watts: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) asked me about further Bills in respect of other crossings. I have no such proposals. There are only two other bridges, the Tyne and the Mersey, where there is any debt owed to the Government and in both those cases that debt is now being repaid by the setting of appropriate toll levels by the bridge operators.
In respect of the proposal to deregulate tolls, the consultation period has finished. We are now considering the responses to consultation. I am not in a position today to state what our reaction will be, but I hope to make an announcement at the earliest opportunity when we have finished our consideration. I can confirm, however, that the Humber bridge was included in the consultation and I expect that it will be included within any powers that we might take in any such legislation.
Privatisation is not an objective of the Bill. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) made a very good case for privatisation as a longer-term solution to the problem, that is not in any way connected with the Bill, which relates to the undertaking given by one of my predecessors in 1991.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North also asked me about improvements to the road links to the bridge. At present, we have no such proposals. I really could not begin to improve upon the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), which brought great pleasure to both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) questioned some of the timings to which I referred. I understand that the final decision to build the


bridge was taken in 1969 and my source of information for that is a publication by the bridge board, which would have no particular reason to give false information. Loans were agreed in May 1971 and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes explained why the Government of the day were not concerned about that because the responsibility for repaying the loans rested firmly and squarely with the local authorities that promoted the bridge.
It was a bit rich for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North to mention sound finance and to criticise my noble friend Lord Barber. His memory conveniently slipped over 1976, when we experienced some of the highest levels of inflation Britain has ever known. If, as he said—of course I accept what he said on this point—the promise to build the bridge was not necessary to secure his election as the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, it was even more a waste of money. Although I have no doubt that at the time we would have liked to see my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham representing Kingston upon Hull, North, he has told us that he is well satisfied with his continuing election in perpetuity in Twickenham. Nobody on either side of the House bears any malice towards the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, who is a distinguished Member of the House, and who has added to its variety.
I owe my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes a debt of gratitude, as he has given me another new alibi. When Members ask me why they cannot have their bypass in future, I shall say that all the money has been expended on the Humber bridge. He also stressed—as he has on many occasions—as did the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), the importance of the bridge to his constituents, who require access to a hospital located on the north side of the river.
My hon. Friend may know that when I had a meeting with the bridge board on my birthday on 19 April this year, we discussed the burden of tolls on those needing to go to hospital for treatment. I told those on the board that if they wished to put forward a workable scheme for a concession to such essential users, I would look at it sympathetically as part of the package of proposals.

Mr. James Cran: I have no difficulty with increasing tolls because they have not increased since 1989. The question is by how much. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was absolutely right to stress those special categories, but we shall want to encourage usage of the bridge. My hon. Friend the Minister said that tolls must be high but realistic. However, those two conditions may be mutually exclusive. All I want to hear from him tonight is that he is not leading the board by the snout and telling it to do what he wishes. If he does that, it will simply put a very large increase to the public inquiry and we shall all have to give our views on it.

Mr. Watts: I would not seek, nor would the board promote, a level of tolls that would reduce the traffic and the revenue. That would be counter-productive. As I have said before, it is for the board to promote a new toll tariff and then for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to determine it when the other procedures have been completed.
In view of the assurance from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that the bridge did not assist his election to this House, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will not try to send him a bill for part of the cost.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to have some of the arguments the wrong way round. He seemed worried that I might be trying to offload a problem on to local taxpayers. On the contrary: the purpose of this generous legislation is to take some of the burden off them. The local authorities promoted the legislation authorising the bridge in such a way as to put the whole burden—£435 million as it now is—firmly on local taxpayers, chiefly those of Hull. So the hon. Gentleman must not reverse the argument; he must accept that the burden arose in the first place because of the way that the project was taken forward. I am taking powers that will enable the Government to relieve the local taxpayer of some of the burden. The precise amount of write-off and suspension will have to be determined and then contained in the order that I shall put before the House in due course.
On the whole, the constituents of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West ought to view me as Father Christmas; but he will recognise that Father Christmas does not always give children everything they want. It is not, as he suggested, a lack of action on the part of the Government that has allowed the problem to accumulate. The board has procrastinated by not coming up with proposals to maintain the levels of its tolls. Certainly, it tried to introduce a Bill, but if it had acted sensibly, it would have promoted an increase in tolls using the procedures currently available to it. It would also have promoted a Bill to provide for a more efficacious method of keeping the value of the tolls up to date in future. The board should not have sat back and waited for a private Bill to be taken through the House.
I remind the House that the Bill failed because not a single hon. Member was prepared to pick it up and sponsor it, even though it went through the other place—

Mr. Morley: Quite right.

Mr. Watts: But the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West has suggested that the Government are responsible for the board's inability to maintain its toll charges.

Mr. Michael Brown: I plead guilty, and I do so publicly along with the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). I objected to the Humber Bridge Board seeking to use private legislation to deal with its problems. A clause in the Bill would have enabled the board to abdicate responsibility for setting tolls; it handed over to the Secretary of State unlimited powers over future tolls. I had to have regard to the fact that one day there might be a Labour Secretary of State who might misuse those powers.

Mr. Watts: I was not necessarily criticising my hon. Friend—only Opposition Members who suggested that the Government failed to help bring about a solution. If Opposition Members had wished to do so, they could have sponsored the Bill on behalf of their local authorities.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe almost led us astray today by saying that £3 billion was wasted on the poll tax. He will know that any such figure represented the increase in revenue support grant from


central Government to local government. If he really thinks the money should not have been spent, he is advocating a reduction in central Government support for local government by that amount. I am sure that he will want to reconsider; it would be a most inconvenient proposition for Labour Front Benchers.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the impact of tolls on road haulage. The current toll for the largest heavy goods vehicle is £10.90. He will know, from the excellent information provided by the bridge board, that on the journey from Hull to Grimsby using the bridge involves a saving of 47.9 miles. Most hauliers would consider the toll good value for money, given that the alternative would involve more fuel and more time for the driver.
Comparisons with other crossings and links on the trunk road network are invalid. I remind the House that the bridge was promoted by local authorities to serve a local purpose. Once a local authority has done such a thing and accepted that the financial responsibility for it should rest with its local taxpayers, it is a bit rich to compare the bridge with crossings on other parts of the trunk road network promoted by my Department to serve national strategic needs.

Mr. Morley: I mentioned the Limehouse link earlier. No private sector contribution was forthcoming for it, and the Public Accounts Committee criticised the Department of the Environment—the funding agency—for that, recognising that the link benefited the private developers of Canary wharf who contributed nothing. So there was an even poorer return for the money put into that link, which amounted to more than the cost of the Humber bridge. Surely in any case the Minister must recognise that the bridge is part of our national infrastructure network.

Mr. Watts: One's perception of the value of that link depends on the value one places on the redevelopment of docklands. Some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends who represent parts of east London might take a rather different view.
For all the reasons adduced in this debate, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bates.]

Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

HUMBER BRIDGE (DEBTS) [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the Secretary of State to provide that sums which would otherwise be payable to him by the Humber Bridge Board shall not be so payable.—[Mr. Bates.]

Question agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [19 December]; reported, without amendment; not amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.

PETITION

War Medals (Replacement)

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of my constituent, Mr. J. Conn. It concerns the fact that he and other pensioners like him who have had their medals stolen or who have lost them by misadventure are asking the Ministry of Defence to take that into account and to make efforts to replace the medals. I think that a worthy cause, particularly on the 50th anniversary of the end of the war in which Mr. Conn and many others saw service. That is why they would like the medals they won in the war to be replaced. This is not a big matter, but I hope that the Ministry of Defence will take account of it—as I know that many hon. Members will.
The petition ends:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Ministry of Defence to consider the plight of Mr. Conn and others in a similar situation and endeavour to replace these medals.
Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Textile Effluent

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

Mr. David Tredinnick: I am grateful to have secured the debate. It will be the last debate today and, therefore, of the pre-Christmas part of the Session.
I wish to highlight a serious threat to the dye-works in Hinckley in my constituency, the threat to Brookside Dyers, Atkins, Fludes, Halls and Sketchley. It is a threat to 500 jobs in the industry in Hinckley and a threat to thousands of other jobs in the related hosiery, knitwear and textile industries. I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight that threat there and at other towns in the county and in the region.
In February 1990, at a meeting called at the request of Severn Trent Water Ltd., the dyeing and finishing sector committee of the Knitting Industries Federation Ltd., KIF, was told for the first time that the then newly formed National Rivers Authority intended to introduce consents on the discharge of dye colour in textile effluent received at certain sewage treatment works. The treatment works at Hinckley, Loughborough, Wigston, Wanlip and Pinxton were all identified as problem areas.
It was explained by Severn Trent Water that the procedures in place at the works to which I have referred were ineffective in removing dye colour, which was passing through the treatment process into rivers. Surprisingly, STW stated that it was not prepared to offer any solution but laid the responsibility for the removal of the colour firmly on the shoulders of individual dischargers.
It was not until June 1992 that the NRA's proposed colour consents were revealed, with the declaration that these would be introduced by 1 January 1994 at the latest. The consents amounted to a gin-clear discharge for 100 per cent. of the time. I always thought that gin had a blue tinge and was not exactly clear, but we had better not pursue that line this evening.
The proposal to implement gin-clear discharge—that is discharge without any coloration—would have had a catastrophic impact on the industry then, and would have one now unless STW took the necessary action. Fortunately, at the time, the KIF sprung into action. I congratulate it on what it has done. It appointed an environment committee. It rapidly established, following a worldwide trawl, that there were no known solutions at end of pipe that would be viable for those compelled to discharge into sewers. The committee stressed the non-toxic nature of the effluent at the levels of dilution involved, together with the major threat to jobs in the east midlands.
There was clearly a need for a formal tripartite action group—it is known as the TAG—between the KIF, STW and the NRA. That group was set up in January 1993. General meetings of dyers were held at Leicester and Mansfield, at which the NRA and STW gave audio-visual presentations. These did nothing to allay the sector's fears.
By the end of March 1993 it became clear that the TAG had become deadlocked. That was principally because of the NRA's insistence on maintaining its so-called gin-clear consents for 100 per cent. of the time. That gave

STW an excuse for not accepting the responsibility for removing dye colour at its treatment works, although it was much better placed to carry out the job more economically, efficiently and effectively than any of the dye-works.
The KIF took the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The meeting took place in July 1993, with support from the union, the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades and the all-party knitting industry lobby at Westminster. Meanwhile, the support of the influential Chemical Industries Association Ltd. dye users group was enlisted along with the Textile Finishers Association in Manchester. It was agreed with the then Minister that the TAG should have high-level talks with senior officials at the Department of Trade and Industry to arrive at a workable solution through mediation.
Trials were agreed. It was not until October 1993 that the long-awaited but elusive dividend which had been sought was achieved. Severn Trent finally agreed to undertake, on a trial basis, to remove the colour at selected sewage treatment works. A joint action plan was submitted to the NRA with the following central aims: the pursuit of practical colour removal at selected treatment works, the examination of dye house discharge management procedures, the formulation of best practice for dye house operations and the establishment of further research development programmes. But the breakthrough became shortlived.
The NRA's response to the JAP of continuing insistence on the gin-clear consent for 100 per cent. of the time, compounded by the introduction of the unacceptable peg-in-the-ground concept—you are probably as confused as I was, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I first came across the concept, but broadly speaking it means no increase in capacity for existing dye-works—caused STW to revert to its original and, I suggest, unacceptable policy of passing the problem back along the pipe to the dischargers.
Simultaneously, the KIF, as part of its responsibilities under the JAP, initiated—this was with the assistance of an expert, Dr. Skelly—the publication of a water and effluent management manual. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department for a contribution of £10,000. The total cost was £30,000. The manual, which included individual case studies by the products sector, set out best practice for dye house operations. Copies were distributed to the member dye houses in May 1994.
What is the NRA's response to the JAP? By the end of March 1994 it had become clear that although the NRA would not become a party to the JAP, it was prepared, provided all parties proceeded with their respective commitments, to postpone the introduction of its colour consents until 1 January 1996. More time had been bought for the industry, and that was important.
During this period, or breathing space, a significant number of dischargers, such as those in my constituency, continued their search for suitable technologies to remove the colour in association with a variety of water equipment suppliers. They were not idly standing by but taking action. Many of the pilot rigs installed proved effective in removing the colour. However, the associated costs of bulk applications, in terms either of capital or of revenue, proved prohibitively expensive in the absence of


an ability to recycle a significant volume of the effluent. Only through recycling could meaningful payback be achieved.
The KIF therefore decided, with the co-operation of four member dye houses, to make an application to the Department, under the Government's Link programme, for a 50 per cent. grant towards a £2.5 million project. The very size of that figure indicates the enormous costs that dye houses face in responding to the problem. Unfortunately, the Department rejected the application in June 1995 on the ground that it was oriented towards near-market applied research rather than pure research. However, I have to thank the Minister because I understand that, in the past few days, £8,000 has been made available, and several companies will be able to install new equipment and work on recycling as a result.
What about this year? Severn Trent commenced bulk trials on part of the effluent flow at the Wanlip sewage treatment works in Leicester. The Wanlip works is the biggest of the works that I am talking about this evening and, depending on how one classifies dischargers, there are 30 to 40 whose discharge is sent there. It is therefore a very important works. I understand that the trials have proved successful although the seasonality and long-term prospects have still to be tested. Further trials at Pinxton, where there is a sole discharger with a dedicated sewer, have so far failed to produce satisfactory results.
Severn Trent claims, however, that it has not been possible to carry out trials at the other peripheral treatment works at Hinckley—which is the principal subject of my debate—or Loughborough because of the intermittent absence of perceptible colour in the effluent. That was no doubt influenced by the fashion colours for the spring-summer 1995 season. My hon. Friend the Minister may not study such matters in great detail, but the colours were neutral and pastel shades, which meant that it was difficult to test for dye. Severn Trent's declared intention to pursue trials at Wigston have apparently been similarly frustrated.
In January this year, the halfway point in the NRA's two-year postponement of the introduction of colour consents—a postponement for which, as I have already said, the industry is grateful—the Knitting Industries Federation called for a mid-term review to be carried out by itself, Severn Trent and the NRA, again under the chairmanship of the DTI. That chairmanship was provided by the Department's textiles and retailing division. The mood of the industry is very much one of gratitude to the Department for taking that interest and for chairing the review so effectively. I thank the Minister on behalf of the Knitting Industries Federation and other parties.
Four meetings took place throughout the year, the last of which was held on 1 December in Nottingham. During that process, the KIF successfully demonstrated, among other things, that the NRA's proposed colour consents were flawed, firstly because the gin-clear approach was unnecessarily excessive, having regard to the inherent background colour in the affected rivers. In other words, there is a great deal of coloration in the rivers anyway. Secondly, the so-called "100 per cent. of the time" requirement was prohibitive, given the untested nature of the colour-removal treatment at sewage treatment works over an extended period.
Fortunately, modified and less stringent wavelength criteria were finally accepted by the NRA which, at the same time, agreed to adopt a phased percentile approach

with associated look-up tables starting with 90 per cent. compliance—rather than 100 per cent. compliance—from 1 January next year; 95 per cent. compliance with effect from 1 January 1997; and, with effect from 1 January 1998, 95 per cent. compliance but including an upper-tier absorbency limit for each wavelength. At that point, the upper tiers will be absolute and must not be exceeded.
The NRA then served the modified consents on Severn Trent on 1 October, covering the treatment works at Hinckley in my constituency, and the ones at Loughborough, Pinxton, Wanlip and Wigston, by giving the statutory three months' notice in advance of their introduction on 1 January next year. In turn, Severn Trent—in compliance with statutory requirements—served consents on all the dischargers in each of the consented catchment areas on 1 November.
Severn Trent claims that it is not possible to pass the percentile approach to dischargers end of pipe, except perhaps to a single discharger into a dedicated sewer. In the process, Severn Trent declared to dischargers in the Wanlip catchment area its preparedness to remove the colour at the sewage treatment works at a cost of between 20p and 30p per cubic metre, always provided that there was a sufficient level of take-up by the dischargers; I can tell my hon. Friend that there almost certainly will be.
However, Severn Trent has not offered the dischargers into the peripheral sewage treatment works, such as that at Hinckley, the facility of removing the colour from their effluent. That is grossly unfair and wholly unreasonable. Bearing in mind where the colour saga began in 1990, and taking into account the KIF's prolonged and determined campaign in the subsequent 70 months, the outcome at the large Wanlip catchment area in Leicester might be considered satisfactory. In contrast, as no facilities are being offered by Severn Trent to remove the colour at the designated peripheral sewage treatment works such as that in Hinckley, the position of the dyers that I cited earlier is as grave as ever.
The absence of an even-handed approach by Severn Trent across the affected area is regrettably divisive and threatens the future of those who discharge into the designated peripheral treatment works, not only at Hinckley but at Loughborough, Pinxton and Wigston. The unavoidable next step is for those dischargers in question to enter an appeal to Ofwat.
The KIF's five years of campaigning and lobbying has achieved significant and meaningful progress. At the outset, Severn Trent refused to accept responsibility for removing colour at the affected sewage treatment works. Meanwhile, the NRA stuck rigidly to its excessive and, I would suggest, ridiculous gin-clear standards for 100 per cent. of the time. The KIF campaign initially persuaded the NRA to postpone the introduction of colour consents for two years until 1 January 1996. Thereafter, the NRA was further persuaded to modify the severity of its original consent proposals and at the same time to adopt a phased percentile approach. That is jargon which means that it allowed some failures, thus making it much easier for dischargers to meet the requirements.
Following succesful trials at Wanlip, Severn Trent has in turn been persuaded to accept the responsibility for removing colour at that works but at a cost of 20p to 30p per cubic metre, assuming that there is sufficient take-up. As I said, I am fairly sure that there will be.


Meanwhile, the collective research efforts of many members for end-of-pipe solutions at an estimated cost of £1 million have resulted in considerable progress being made in identifying suitable combination technologies for colour removal, albeit largely unproven throughout the cycle. At the moment, there is no technology in the world to cope with the specific problem. In any event, the cost of bulk installation would be around £300,000 per firm. I should like my hon. Friend to bear that figure in mind.
If dye-works at Hinckley in my constituency are going to have to pay £300,000 each, one does not have to be psychic to work out the impact on their competitiveness. If they are forced to pay such an amount, I envisage the thriving dye industry at Hinckley facing serious difficulties. It would affect not only Hinckley but the other centres to which I have referred, such as at Loughborough and Wigston. A very serious cost factor is involved, and I encourage my hon. Friend to look carefully at the possibility of making further money available for research, perhaps to Severn Trent, for the peripheral works that are necessary.
The absence of colours in the flows, apart from intermittently during the summer months, which was due to the fashion colours—the light colours—to which I referred, has prevented Severn Trent from carrying out any trials. It stated that, despite the works being included in the original joint action plan in late 1993, it is not in a position to offer colour removal facilities at those sewage treatment works from 1 January 1996, when the consents are due to become operative. Thereafter, Severn Trent seems to be of the opinion that the associated costs would be excessive at those works, always assuming that suitable technologies were available. It claims that it does not follow that the system established at Wanlip would be suitable elsewhere.
If Severn Trent, with its massive resources, thinks that the costs will be excessive, how does it think that Halls, in my constituency, Atkins or any of the other dye houses to which I referred, are supposed to continue trading? Severn Trent has advised that it will not be appealing against the NRA's colour consents, but meanwhile has imposed consents on each of the dischargers—passing the buck, one might say. Those consents are not identical to those that the NRA has imposed, and Severn Trent argues that it is not possible to pass the percentile approach up the pipe to individual dischargers, with the possible exception of Pinxton, where there is only one discharger.
According to Ofwat, its target time scale for deciding appeals is 18 weeks from the date when the further mediation between Severn Trent and the dischargers breaks down—I think that it probably will break down. In practice, though, the time scale is within the gift of Severn Trent. For those discharging at Loughborough, Hinckley, Pinxton and Wigston, where no colour-removing facility is being offered by Severn Trent, there is no choice but to enter appeals not later than 31 December. The central thrust of the appeals, subject to obtaining sound legal advice, would be that the discharger's costs are more than those of Severn Trent to treat the discharge to the same environmental standard at its works.
I know that the KIF is perfectly prepared to co-ordinate such appeals, with the assistance of an experienced environmental law practice; I have had discussions with

it on that point. I hope that it does not get as far as that, and that is one reason why I raised the issue this evening. My understanding is that, under paragraph 6 of schedule 10 to the Water Resources Act 1991, the Secretary of State for the Environment has the power to direct the NRA to revoke a discharge consent or impose or modify any conditions of the consent if it appears appropriate to him to do so, in consequence of any representations or objections made to him. It appears, however, from the general context in which that provision is set, that its purpose is to enable the Secretary of State to impose stricter requirements—I certainly do not argue that that is what we want from my hon. Friend tonight—and not to relieve the burden. The KIF has been advised that that power is capable of being interpreted in such a way as to allow a relaxation, even a direction quashing the NRA's consents. I ask my hon. Friend a specific question—I know that this is a complicated matter. Will he give an undertaking that he will at least consider what action he can take directly to alleviate the problem, and not, as seems to be the current policy with Severn Trent, pass the problem down the pipe, as we say?
In five days, the KIF has raised enough money for legal costs, including counsel's opinion, to address the issue at Hinckley, Loughborough, Wigston and Pinxton, on the Erewash. I understand that, when an appeal is entered, consent is immediately set aside. If it has to get the consents set aside—it cannot comply with them anyway by 1 January next year, for all the reasons that I have given—and an appeal is entered, we shall be in a state of suspended animation. We shall have to look at ways to break that. Severn Trent could have appealed against the NRA consents to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but it took a policy decision not to do so. Why did it not appeal? Why did it not get on and do something about it? I think that the answer is that it thought that if it left the problem alone, it would not have to address it and that it would end up at the discharger's door.
I hope very much that in the first stage of the appeals procedure, which now looks to be an inevitability, action will be taken to get the relevant parties—the NRA, Severn Trent and the dischargers—together for sensible discussions. I know that the KIF intends to set up consultative meetings between those key groups. The mediation process could take weeks or months. The length of the negotiations is under the control of Severn Trent. If it got beyond the preliminary appeals procedure, to what is the appeals procedure proper, the consents would not be quashed, but Severn Trent would be forced to remove the colour at reasonable cost. It could have undertaken trials in 1994, but it did not. In 1995, it has a problem because the fashion colours are light.
This is a complicated business. It is not an issue on which people can easily hold their attention, precisely because it is so detailed. One of the complexities of the problem is that the dye discharged is not of a constant nature; the chemicals in it are not constant. That means that there are changes daily. We need not just one process to clean the dye that is in the discharge but several, and that raises some big issues. If the end users, for example the dye-works at Hinckley, are supposed to deal with the problem themselves—never mind the enormous costs, at £300,000 per dye-works—there are environmental issues, too, because with such constantly changing chemicals, they will need a chemist to get it right. It would be much safer for Severn Trent to take the issue and solve the


problem collectively in the peripheral treatment works. It is absurd to expect individual dye-works to introduce very complicated processes at vast expense.
It is also grossly unfair on my region, because specific problems relate to rivers. The River Soar in Leicestershire is a slow-flowing river, unlike many others, so disposal of effluent takes longer. That is why there is pressure. Never mind Sketchley brook at Hinckley, into which most of the Hinckley dye-works discharges. The quality of receiving water, to use the jargon, in the area is worse than in the rest of the country, where the problem does not exist. It behoves Severn Trent to face up to its responsibilities.
I must compliment my hon. Friend and his Department on the participation of the textile and retail division in presiding over the tripartite talks set up by the review committee. That really has helped, and I understand that it has led to a satisfactory solution at Wanlip, where there are between 30 and 40 dischargers. However, other dyers in Leicestershire—not least the five in Hinckley to which I have referred—face a tremendously difficult time, with 1 January, when the consents come in, just around the corner.
I have referred to the enormous costs that those dyers face, and I have mentioned the environmental worries. I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to make every effort to make the mediation stage of appeal a success—to persuade Severn Trent to accept the responsibility, which it is morally obliged to accept, to upgrade the peripheral treatment works at Hinckley and Loughborough, and the others that I have listed. If my hon. Friend can do that, he will have served the House well.
I look to my hon. Friend to press for a sensible negotiated settlement that will protect not only the environment but jobs in Hinckley's dye houses, which are vital to the town, the county and the country.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) for raising such an important subject. I know that he is very concerned about the health of the textile industry, which, as he rightly said, is important to many of his constituents. He has certainly demonstrated that concern tonight, along with his mastery of the technical details of a complicated subject. He has used that knowledge to give the House a penetrating analysis of the problems facing the textile industry in his constituency, and in other parts of Leicestershire and the midlands.
My hon. Friend has outlined some of the issues that face the textile industry in its efforts to meet the standards required for the discharge to water of effluent coloured by dyestuffs. The issue also involves problems for the National Rivers Authority and the water companies in the meeting of their objectives, as the House will have gathered. As I have said, the matter is complicated and sensitive, and I do not wish to upset the delicate balance that has been reached in discussions among the parties so far; nor can I comment in any detail on issues that may affect individual cases, for fear of prejudicing any appeals to the Secretary of State by those who feel aggrieved.
I do, however, wish to outline the position, and the reasons why the NRA considers it necessary to control

the discharge of dye colour by textile companies. We are all familiar with the high quality of the knitwear goods produced in Leicester and surrounding areas, and with the attractive range of colours and patterns that are available nowadays. Of course, once dyes have been applied, any surplus must discharged from the premises in waste water.
In matters of this sort, there is a danger that the issues will be exaggerated. It would be wrong to characterise this issue in terms either of an over-zealous regulator making life difficult for British industry to no worthwhile purpose, or of a lurid picture of rivers flowing purple and red and devoid of life. Neither of those characterisations would be accurate.
Generally, dyestuffs are non-toxic pollutants. However, in this case it is not a question of interference for no good reason. Although dyestuffs are not toxic, the discolouration of rivers caused by uncontrolled discharge of dyestuffs is of legitimate aesthetic concern, and a source of pollution. There is understandable public concern about visibly coloured water, or rivers suddenly changing colour. That concern, and the need to control such pollution, is at the heart of the wide and diverse range of uses to which we put our rivers.
Rivers are major features of our landscape. When they are used for the discharge of waste, it must be on a sustainable basis. They are used not only as sources of water for a wide range of industrial purposes, but as sources of drinking water. They support valuable ecosystems, which must be protected. Just as important, they are an invaluable recreational asset, particularly for the angling community.
For those reasons, we must manage our rivers efficiently, and ensure that they are able to meet the needs of all who wish to use them. The NRA exists to carry out that management, and has a statutory duty to ensure that pollution is controlled. There is, of course, public concern about pollution, and the NRA is properly responsive to that concern.
Under the Water Resources Act 1991, it is an offence to cause or knowingly permit polluting matter to enter a water course; however, acting under and in accordance with a discharge consent provides a defence against such charges. Thus, both discharges made from a manufacturing plant and those made via a sewage treatment works require consents, and the NRA is able to impose requirements in respect of the discharge that protect the local aquatic environment and the key users of those waters.
As for dyestuffs, I understand that, for some time, the NRA has been keen to introduce conditions into consents to control the discharge of coloured waste that meet environmental needs, while ensuring that the consent conditions that they set are achievable. For a variety of reasons, progress has been slow.

Mr. Tredinnick: I asked my hon. Friend to find out whether his Department has direct powers to intervene, and whether, if the Secretary of State has such powers, he would at least consider using them.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend has issued a powerful plea. As he implied, he knows of the rights of appeal that exist, and is aware that some of the matters to which he referred are within the province of the regulators, and are involved in the relationship between regulators and


dischargers. I will respond to that powerful plea in due course, but before I do so, I feel that I should set out the background, and the reasons why regulation is required.
As I said, progress has been slow, but discussions have continued. This year, discussions between the Government, the NRA, water companies and industry representatives have made good progress on standards and their implementation from 1 January 1996. The objective is to ensure that discolouration caused by dyestuffs is not visible to the naked eye. I noted my hon. Friend's comments on that.
I believe that the NRA has worked to ensure that attention is paid to the needs of industry, as well as fulfilling its statutory duty to protect our rivers. At the same time, industry is aware that this source of pollution must be controlled, and that it will be necessary to contribute to the cost of reducing discolouration: it is a well-established principle, applying widely across the environmental field, that the polluter pays.
The sewerage undertakers have also been included in the dialogue. When discharges are being made to sewer, a consent is required from the sewerage undertaker, who must ensure that discharges are such as to enable effective treatment to take place to remove pollutants, and—when the effluent is finally treated and released into the river—for NRA requirements to be met in respect of the discharge from the treatment works that they operate.
As I understand it, the National Rivers Authority has come up with proposals that have secured a good measure of agreement. Acceptable standards that will achieve the desired aesthetic effects, but that are not overly stringent, will be progressively introduced from 1 January, and compliance will be assessed on a basis established with some flexibility.
That provides the conditions for the textile industry to rise to the challenge and, to meet pollution reduction targets, to work on means of reducing discolouring emissions. One of the most promising may be to recycle waste water within the plant, which would have the benefit of allowing installation costs to be offset against other savings. The complex process of dyeing and treatment of residues might be re-examined with a view to minimising waste.
I congratulate the regulators and the industry on progress so far, but I do not underestimate the difficulties that must be resolved in an industry that, for historical reasons, is based on old infrastructure. The ability to invest and to modernise has been affected by global competition, and there have been job losses and poor profitability. The industry has gone through difficult times.
That combination of factors lies at the root of many of the environmental concerns that the industry faces. The National Rivers Authority is aware of those difficulties, and has aimed to recognise the problems and to reach a sensible agreement that will not jeopardise the industry's future.
Many of the factors that I have outlined affecting the manufacturers' economic position will concern manufacturers in my hon. Friend's constituency, especially in relation to the dischargers to the six peripheral treatment

plants to which he drew attention. I am sure that he will share my pleasure that good progress has been made on discharges to the treatment plants at Wanlip, which will help 30 to 40 dischargers. As he rightly says, however, issues remain at the six peripheral works.
My hon. Friend has made a strong case on those dischargers and those plants. In response to his plea for an undertaking, as I have said, there are some restrictions on my position on this matter. I must be aware of matters that properly lie within regulators' province and of any possible appeal rights, but he has rightly outlined the interests that my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry have taken in the matter so far, which will be maintained. We recognise the importance of securing an agreement, if possible, on this important subject, which affects, as he has said, so many of his constituents who are employed by these manufacturers.
It would be for the House's benefit if I briefly repeated the background of assistance that has been given by the Department of Trade and Industry and by the Department of the Environment, which my hon. Friend fairly and fully outlined. That assistance has been in the form of funding for a manual of best practice through a £10,000 grant, mediation between parties, recycling support—which is important and which, as my hon. Friend has said, has been valued by industry—and a continued role in meetings between the parties. In all those respects, the Government have been seeking to assist the industry, and will of course continue to do so in the same way.
It is worth emphasising that the benefits go further than just to the industry, important though that is. There are other benefits for the environment and for industry in environmentally friendly processes. They are a hallmark of an efficient and competitive industry. Consumers of the end product are increasingly seeking reassurance that the process of manufacture has not damaged the environment, and green technology can therefore help in the marketplace.
The textile industry is no exception; it cannot afford to fall behind. New technology and investment may be necessary to meet environmental standards, but development of that technology should be of long-term benefit to the industry that develops it. It is part of the process of change and adaptation, which also benefits the environment. I emphasise that.
There are signs that that is already happening. The NRA annual report for 1994–95, published earlier this year, showed that, overall, there has been a considerable improvement in the quality of our rivers and canals in the past few years. More specifically, there has been a net improvement of 26 per cent. in the length of rivers and canals, between 1990 and 1994, achieving good environmental standards.
Next year, the NRA will be publishing its quinquennial report on river quality in 1990–95. In part, that is a result of a joint approach by the NRA with industry in developing workable standards that meet the environment's needs and safeguard industrial output.
I think that that is an appropriate point on which to draw my remarks to a conclusion. Against that background, I reiterate the need for continuing, sensible dialogue to resolve the remaining difficulties. The NRA has a duty to protect our water environment from pollution, from whatever source. A timetable has been


drawn up for implementation of the NRA consent conditions, and, in turn, conditions laid down by water companies.
I therefore congratulate all concerned on the way in which they have, in recent times, approached this problem, with a genuine desire to cater for one another's particular needs. I am pleased to note the progress that

has been made so far. It is in all our interests to ensure that river pollution is minimised. The NRA has been working towards that, and I hope that the opportunity to move forward will produce the desired results.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eight o'clock.